Bylow v. Union Casualty & Surety Co.

Supreme Court of Vermont

Bylow v. Union Casualty & Surety Co.

47 A. 1066, 72 Vt. 325, 1900 Vt. LEXIS 140

CourtSupreme Court of Vermont

DecidedJune 19, 1900

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 47 A. 1066 (Bylow v. Union Casualty & Surety Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Vermont primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bylow v. Union Casualty & Surety Co., 47 A. 1066, 72 Vt. 325, 1900 Vt. LEXIS 140 (Vt. 1900).

Pincite

Opinion

Tart, C. J.

This case is brought to this court by exceptions from the City Court of Barre. The plaintiff was insured by the defendant company against accident and in order to entitle him to recover, one condition of the policy was, that the accident which caused the injury for which he seeks to recover should “immediately and independently of all other causes and wholly and continuously disable and prevent the insured from performing any and every kind of duty pertaining to his occupation.” It appears by the policy that the plaintiff’s occupation was a lumper in a granite cutting yard, the duties of which employment were “overseeing and changing and boxing granite, loading and unloading cars.” The plaintiff’s thumb was injured when at work as such lumper and he continued thereafter in the employ of the granite firm in superintending the work that he [326]*326had been previously doing. To oversee is to superintend. Webster’s Int. Die. 1024.

It thus appears that he was not wholly and continuously disabled and prevented from performing any and every kind of duty pertaining to his occupation for he continued in the employ of the same firm in connection with his duties, performing them in part, receiving ninety per cent, of his full pay, working nine hours daily instead of ten at the same rate per hour that had been' paid him. Under this state of facts he is not entitled to-recover.

Judgment of the Cit/y Court is reversed and judgment for the defendant for its costs.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Tart, C. J.

This case is brought to this court by exceptions from the City Court of Barre. The plaintiff was insured by the defendant company against accident and in order to entitle him to recover, one condition of the policy was, that the accident which caused the injury for which he seeks to recover should “immediately and independently of all other causes and wholly and continuously disable and prevent the insured from performing any and every kind of duty pertaining to his occupation.” It appears by the policy that the plaintiff’s occupation was a lumper in a granite cutting yard, the duties of which employment were “overseeing and changing and boxing granite, loading and unloading cars.” The plaintiff’s thumb was injured when at work as such lumper and he continued thereafter in the employ of the granite firm in superintending the work that he [326]*326had been previously doing. To oversee is to superintend. Webster’s Int. Die. 1024.

It thus appears that he was not wholly and continuously disabled and prevented from performing any and every kind of duty pertaining to his occupation for he continued in the employ of the same firm in connection with his duties, performing them in part, receiving ninety per cent, of his full pay, working nine hours daily instead of ten at the same rate per hour that had been' paid him. Under this state of facts he is not entitled to-recover.

Judgment of the Cit/y Court is reversed and judgment for the defendant for its costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

47 A. 1066, 72 Vt. 325, 1900 Vt. LEXIS 140, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bylow-v-union-casualty-surety-co-vt-1900.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack