Claim of King v. B. S. Burlingame

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Claim of King v. B. S. Burlingame

242 A.D. 499, 275 N.Y.S. 106, 1934 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6104

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

DecidedNovember 12, 1934

StatusPublished

This text of 242 A.D. 499 (Claim of King v. B. S. Burlingame) 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 King v. B. S. Burlingame, 242 A.D. 499, 275 N.Y.S. 106, 1934 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6104 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1934).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The wage rate was improperly computed in this case on the theory that claimant was a sawyer. Claimant was not a sawyer, but was actually engaged in farming at the time of the accident. His injury was sustained while operating a buzz-saw— work clearly incidental to farming operation.' The referee erred in refusing to permit the employer to show that he was not engaged in conducting a saw mill. The award should, therefore, be reversed and the matter remitted to the State Industrial Board to make a proper award based on the earnings of persons engaged in agricultural pursuits, to which claimant with his physical and mental qualifications might aspire.

Hill, P. J., Rhodes, McNamee, Crapser and Heffernan, JJ., concur,

Award reversed and matter remitted to the State Industrial Board, without costs.

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

Per Curiam.

The wage rate was improperly computed in this case on the theory that claimant was a sawyer. Claimant was not a sawyer, but was actually engaged in farming at the time of the accident. His injury was sustained while operating a buzz-saw— work clearly incidental to farming operation.' The referee erred in refusing to permit the employer to show that he was not engaged in conducting a saw mill. The award should, therefore, be reversed and the matter remitted to the State Industrial Board to make a proper award based on the earnings of persons engaged in agricultural pursuits, to which claimant with his physical and mental qualifications might aspire.

Hill, P. J., Rhodes, McNamee, Crapser and Heffernan, JJ., concur,

Award reversed and matter remitted to the State Industrial Board, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

242 A.D. 499, 275 N.Y.S. 106, 1934 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6104, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claim-of-king-v-b-s-burlingame-nyappdiv-1934.