election should be held on the first Tuesday of April, did not apply to the city of Moline, the relator in this case, for the reason that that city included within its limits not only the town of Moline but also a part of the town of South Moline, and that it would interfere with the rights of the electors and the election officers who might happen to reside in the city of Moline and also in the town of South Moline by compelling them to attend at two elections on the same day in order to vote, and would also prevent the electors from giving their attention to matters in which they might be interested and coming up at the town election and the city election, where both elections were held on the same day.

In any event, the resolution which was adopted at the town meeting provided that the money it was voted to turn over to the city should be spent within the limits of the town. The only object of the provision in question and of the action taken by the electors of the town of Moline pursuant thereto at the annual town meeting was to provide for what in their judgment would be a more efficient expenditure of the money of the town on the roads, bridges and causeways which are included both within the town and within the city, and in which the electors of the town, as residents and electors within the city, were equally interested. There have been many similar amendments to the Township Organization law, which have been deemed necessary in view of the extension of the boundaries of cities and consequent conflict of authority over roads and public property which are subject to the control of both town authorities and city authorities. The law in question was evidently meant to govern such a case and to give the electors the right to exercise their judgment as to the proper expenditure of public funds. Such funds are spent for their benefit and the benefit of the public at large in any event, whether they are spent by the city authorities or town au

thorities, as in this case they are all to be expended within the limits of both the town and city.

Perceiving no reason why the law should be held unconstitutional and invalid, it is ordered that the writ be awarded. Writ awarded.

CARRIE L. MUNN et al. Plaintiffs in Error, vs. THE INDUSTRIAL BOARD OF ILLINOIS, Defendant in Error.

Opinion filed June 22, 1916.

1. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION-decision of the Industrial Board can be reviewed for errors of law only. On writ of certiorari from the circuit court, or on further writ of error from the Supreme Court, the decision of the Industrial Board can be reviewed for errors of law only; and on writ of error from the Supreme Court, where there is nothing in the record but the findings and decision of the Industrial Board, the only question for the Supreme Court to determine is whether, from the facts recited in the decision of the board, that body acted within its powers in making the award.

2. SAME what sustains decision that injury arose out of and was received in course of employment. A decision by the Industrial Board that the injury causing the death of an employee arose out of and was received in the course of his employment is sustained by its finding of facts that the employee died at his home from the effect of inhaling poisonous fumes on the preceding day while attempting to extinguish a fire in the boiler room of the building in which he was employed as janitor, even though the fire occurred after the hour when he was entitled to quit work according to the terms of his employment.

3. SAME―when decision of Industrial Board is binding. In the absence of fraud, both the circuit court and the Supreme Court are bound by the decision of the Industrial Board if there is any legal evidence to support it.

WRIT OF ERROR to the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. JOHN P. MCGOORTY, Judge, presiding.

MOSES, ROSENTHAL & KENNEDY, (WALTER BACHRACH, of counsel,) for plaintiffs in error.

HUTTMANN, CLOYES, NETHERTON & CARR, (CLAUDE O. NETHERTON, of counsel,) for defendant in error.

Mr. JUSTICE FARMER delivered the opinion of the court:

Carrie L. Munn was the owner of a building located at 172 West Washington street, in the city of Chicago. F. S. Oliver and Andrew Kuby, doing business under the firm name of Oliver & Co., were employed by her, as her agents, to take charge of the rent, management and up-keep of the building. There was an elevator in the building operated for the accommodation of tenants. Conrad Casparson was employed to operate the elevator, fire the boilers in the building and keep the hall and stairways in the building swept clean. The hours of his employment were from seven in the morning to six in the evening. On November 10, 1914, about seven o'clock in the evening, a fire occurred in the basement of the building, where the boilers were located and the coal stored for firing them. Casparson had not left the premises and he attempted to extinguish the fire. In doing so he was overcome by fumes or smoke, or both, collapsed and was carried out of the building, where in a short time he recovered sufficiently to re-enter the basement and move or adjust some boxes therein, after which he went to his home, where he died early the next morning from the effects of inhaling poisonous gases in the boiler room. A committee of arbitration, selected under the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation act, heard the case and awarded the administratrix, Alma M. Casparson, $3500, to be paid in installments of $36.84 per month, beginning the tenth day of November, 1914. On petition of the owner of the building and her agents the award of the committee of arbitration was reviewed by the Industrial Board and it was there affirmed. The case was then removed, on the petition of Carrie L. Munn and Oliver & Co., to the circuit court of Cook county by writ of certiorari. That court affirmed the decision and award of the Indus

trial Board, and the case is brought to this court for review by writ of error.

It is the contention of plaintiffs in error that the fire occurred in the boiler room from film scraps of a highly inflammable character, which accumulated in the rooms of the Standard Film Exchange, one of the tenants in the building, and that said film scraps were placed at the door of the film company's rooms for removal by Casparson, who received fifty cents per week from the film company for that service. It is contended Casparson removed the film scraps in bags to the boiler room in the basement, and that after his hours of employment for the day had ended they in some way were ignited, and that in attempting to extinguish the fire thus caused, Casparson received the injury from which he died. On these grounds it is insisted the accident did not arise out of and in the course of Casparson's employment, and the Industrial Board was therefore. without jurisdiction to make the award and the circuit court erred in confirming it.

Plaintiffs in error contend that upon the facts found by the Industrial Board the injury to the deceased did not arise out of and was not received in the course of his employment. It is conceded this court is bound by the finding of facts made by the Industrial Board and can only review its decision for errors of law. Paragraph (e) of section 19 of the Workmen's Compensation act makes the application for adjustment of claim and other documents in the nature of pleadings filed by either party, together with the decisions of the arbitrators and of the Industrial Board and the agreed statement of facts or stenographic report provided for in paragraphs (b) and (c,) "the record of the proceedings of said board, and shall be subject to review as thereinafter provided." Paragraph (f) makes the decision of the board, "acting within its powers," conclusive in the absence of fraud, unless reviewed as provided in the act. One method of review provided, and the one here

followed, is suing out of the circuit court a writ of certiorari to the Industrial Board. The circuit court in that proceeding has power to review only questions of law presented by the record. The judgments and orders of the circuit court in such cases may be reviewed by the Supreme Court by writ of error if the judge of the circuit court shall make a certificate stating the case is a proper one to be reviewed, or in case the circuit court certifies the case is not a proper one to be reviewed, the Supreme Court may, in its discretion, order a writ of error to issue. No agreed statement of facts or stenographic report is contained in the abstract but the findings and decision of the Industrial Board are. Our powers of review are limited to a determination, from the facts recited in the decision of the Industrial Board, whether that body acted within its powers in making the award. If the injury which caused the employee's death arose out of and was received in the course of his employment then the board acted within its powers, and as no fraud is alleged, its decision was conclusive upon the circuit court and this court. The Industrial Board decided the injury arose out of and was received in the course of deceased's employment, and recited the facts upon which it based its conclusion, as follows:

"The facts are substantially as follows: The respondent Carrie L. Munn was the owner of a building located at 172 West Washington street, in the city of Chicago. She employed Oliver & Co. as her agents, who had charge of the renting and up-keep of the building. The building was one in which an elevator was kept for the accommodation of the tenants. It was the duty of the deceased to operate the elevator, fire the boilers that were in operation in the building and keep the hall and stairways swept and clean. His work was to begin at seven o'clock in the morning and ended in the afternoon at six o'clock. One of the tenants in the building in which the deceased was employed was the Standard Film Exchange, who in the conduct of its busi