Claim of Butterfield v. Brown

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Claim of Butterfield v. Brown

261 A.D. 1022, 25 N.Y.S.2d 803, 1941 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8582

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMarch 12, 1941

StatusPublished

This text of 261 A.D. 1022 (Claim of Butterfield v. Brown) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Claim of Butterfield v. Brown, 261 A.D. 1022, 25 N.Y.S.2d 803, 1941 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8582 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1941).

Pincite

Opinion

Claimant as a farm laborer was excluded from the operation of the act. (Workmen’s Comp. Law, § 2, subd. 4.) Carting firewood for domestic use from a farm that the employer was operating on shares at Owl’s Head, N. Y., is farm labor. Award reversed and claim dismissed, with costs against the State Industrial Board. Hill, P. J., Crapser, Bliss and Foster, JJ., concur; Heffernan, J., dissents. Heffernan, J.: I dissent from the decision about to be made and vote to affirm the award. Although the employer was a farmer he was also conducting a number of other enterprises for gain wholly unrelated to that of farming. The State Industrial [1023]*1023Board has found as a fact that at the time claimant sustained the injury which is the basis of this award he was not employed as a farm laborer but was actually engaged in a hazardous occupation in an independent operation which his employer was carrying on for pecuniary gain. To permit the employer to escape liability on the facts in this record on the ground that sometimes he was garbed in the cloak of a farmer is judicial legislation. Principle and precedent require an affirmation of the award. (Matter of Miles v. Colegrove, 258 App. Div. 1014; affd., 284 N. Y. 609.)

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

Claimant as a farm laborer was excluded from the operation of the act. (Workmen’s Comp. Law, § 2, subd. 4.) Carting firewood for domestic use from a farm that the employer was operating on shares at Owl’s Head, N. Y., is farm labor. Award reversed and claim dismissed, with costs against the State Industrial Board. Hill, P. J., Crapser, Bliss and Foster, JJ., concur; Heffernan, J., dissents. Heffernan, J.: I dissent from the decision about to be made and vote to affirm the award. Although the employer was a farmer he was also conducting a number of other enterprises for gain wholly unrelated to that of farming. The State Industrial [1023]*1023Board has found as a fact that at the time claimant sustained the injury which is the basis of this award he was not employed as a farm laborer but was actually engaged in a hazardous occupation in an independent operation which his employer was carrying on for pecuniary gain. To permit the employer to escape liability on the facts in this record on the ground that sometimes he was garbed in the cloak of a farmer is judicial legislation. Principle and precedent require an affirmation of the award. (Matter of Miles v. Colegrove, 258 App. Div. 1014; affd., 284 N. Y. 609.)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

261 A.D. 1022, 25 N.Y.S.2d 803, 1941 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8582, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claim-of-butterfield-v-brown-nyappdiv-1941.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack