Claim of Gilbert v. Des Lauriers Column Mould Co.

180 A.D. 59, 167 N.Y.S. 274, 1917 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8056
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedNovember 14, 1917
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 180 A.D. 59 (Claim of Gilbert v. Des Lauriers Column Mould Co.) 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 Gilbert v. Des Lauriers Column Mould Co., 180 A.D. 59, 167 N.Y.S. 274, 1917 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8056 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1917).

Opinion

Woodward, J.:

We see no merits in this appeal. The claimant was employed under a New York contract. At the time of his injuries he was performing services for his employer away from the plant of such employer in the State of New Jersey. The claimant originally made application for compensation under the New Jersey statute (N. J. Laws of 1911, chap. 95, as amd.), and the insurance carrier made some payments under the act. Subsequently, the claim was made in this State and an award has been made, crediting the insurance carrier [60]*60with the amount paid under the New Jersey proceeding. The claim that the New Jersey Commission, having accepted jurisdiction and administered upon this claim, deprived the Commission of the State of New York of jurisdiction is, we believe, without force. It is doubtful if the New Jersey Commission ever had any jurisdiction of the case; it was one arising under the statute of this State and the contract growing out of such statute (Matter of Post v. Burger & Gohlke, 216 N. Y. 544, 554), and it was clearly a matter to be handled under the provisions of our statute (Consol. Laws, chap. 67 [Laws of 1914, chap. 41], as amd.), rather than under the statute law of New Jersey. The fact that the claimant was induced to invoke the New Jersey statute in the first instance did not deprive him of the right to have the law of his contract of employment enforced in the manner provided by law, and the insurance carrier, being credited with the amount it has paid under the provisions of the New Jersey statute, is not in law aggrieved.

The award should be affirmed.

Award unanimously affirmed.

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

Related

Ogino v. Black
278 A.D. 146 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1951)
Cline v. Byrne Doors, Inc.
37 N.W.2d 630 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1949)
Industrial Indemnity Exchange v. Industrial Accident Commission
182 P.2d 309 (California Court of Appeal, 1947)
Alexander v. Creel
54 F. Supp. 652 (E.D. Michigan, 1944)
Magnolia Petroleum Co. v. Hunt
320 U.S. 430 (Supreme Court, 1944)
Hunt v. Magnolia Petroleum Co.
10 So. 2d 109 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1942)
United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Lawson
15 F. Supp. 116 (S.D. Georgia, 1936)
Bradford Electric Light Co. v. Clapper
51 F.2d 992 (First Circuit, 1931)
Hughey v. Ware
276 P. 27 (New Mexico Supreme Court, 1929)
Minto v. Hitchings & Co.
204 A.D. 661 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1923)
Mitchell v. St. Louis Smelting & Refining Co.
215 S.W. 506 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1919)
Claim of Di Noto v. Engel & Hevenor
187 A.D. 965 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1919)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
180 A.D. 59, 167 N.Y.S. 274, 1917 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8056, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claim-of-gilbert-v-des-lauriers-column-mould-co-nyappdiv-1917.