The Court of Appeals requested this court's answer to the following questions, as necessary for a decision of this case, to wit: (1) "Where an award has been made to a claimant for the death of her husband *Page 480 for a fixed sum per week for 300 weeks, is the Industrial Board (where 26 weekly payments under the award are already due and unpaid) authorized, under the provisions of the workmen's compensation act and Code § 114-417, to also direct that the employer and/or insurance carrier pay to claimant's attorneys, as reasonable attorney's fees, 25 per cent. of all compensation awarded the claimant, which amount paid to the attorneys should be in a lump sum, and the employer and/or insurance carrier to take credit for said payment on the compensation awarded at the end of the compensation period, with interest at 5 per cent. on all compensation not yet payable under the terms of the award?" (2) "Where no lump sum settlement is awarded claimant, may the Industrial Board, where 26 weekly payments under the award are already due and unpaid, direct payment of attorney's fees in a lump sum in the amount of 25 per cent. of all compensation awarded, reduced to its present commutable value, and credit therefor be taken at the end of the compensation period?" Both questions are answered in the affirmative.
That the weekly payments to the widow would cease upon her remarriage (Code, § 114-414), and cease altogether upon her death (United States Fidelity Guaranty Co. v. Hairston, 37 Ga. App. 234,139 S.E. 685), and if either event should presently occur, that her counsel will have received, under the award of the board, money which plaintiffs in error would never have been called on to pay, might have afforded weighty considerations why the board should not have made the award in a lump sum in part; but we are dealing here with the power of the board so to do. We find in the record a well-considered opinion by Honorable Clifford Pratt, the judge of the superior court, whose decision in this case is under review by the Court of Appeals. We are in accord with the views expressed by him on this subject. It is in part as follows: "The remaining question presented by the record here is whether the Industrial Board exceeded its authority in providing in the award that the fee of the counsel for the widow-claimant in this case awarded to be paid in a lump sum and credited against the last instalment payments to the claimant. It is conceded that it can only be legally justified under the provisions of Code 114-417 as amended by the act of 1937 (Georgia Laws 1937, pp. 230 et seq.). This provision is that `whenever any weekly payment has been continued for not less than 26 weeks, the liability therefor may, when the Industrial Board deem it to be to the best interest of the employee or his dependents, . . be redeemed, in whole or in part, by the payment by the employer of a lump sum which shall be fixed by the board.' The appeal to the full board is a trial de novo. Peninsular Life Ins. Co. v.Brand, 57 Ga. App. 526 (196 S.E. 264). The judgment now under review is the judgment of the full board. At that time the weekly payments *Page 482 had been due for a continuous period of at least 26 weeks. The counsel fee is a part of the award to claimant. Thus, it is my opinion that the board was within the authority conferred on it by the section referred to, as amended in 1937."
Both questions propounded by the Court of Appeals are answered in the affirmative.
All the Justices concur.