Dailey v. Mutual Chemical Co. of America

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Dailey v. Mutual Chemical Co. of America

19 A.2d 778, 126 N.J.L. 426, 1941 N.J. LEXIS 332

CourtSupreme Court of New Jersey

DecidedApril 25, 1941

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 19 A.2d 778 (Dailey v. Mutual Chemical Co. of America) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of New Jersey primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Dailey v. Mutual Chemical Co. of America, 19 A.2d 778, 126 N.J.L. 426, 1941 N.J. LEXIS 332 (N.J. 1941).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The single point made here is that the evidence revealed that plaintiff suffered an “accident” compensable under R. S. 1937, 34:15-7, et seq., and therefore the Court of Common Pleas “was without jurisdiction to proceed with the cause of action on the issues as framed by the pleadings and should have granted defendant’s motion for a nonsuit;” and we concur in the view of the Chief Justice that the injury complained of is not so classable. The point was not made on the motion to nonsuit; and it is in essence one not entertain-able if raised for the first time on appeal, i. e., one that concerns the terms of the contract of service. Compare Butler v. Eberstadt, 113 N. J. L. 569.

For affirmance — The Chancellor, Case, Bodine, Donges, Heher, Portee, Colie, Dear, Wells, WolesKeil, Raeeeety, Hague, Thompson, JJ. 13.

For reversal — Hone.

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

Per Curiam.

The single point made here is that the evidence revealed that plaintiff suffered an “accident” compensable under R. S. 1937, 34:15-7, et seq., and therefore the Court of Common Pleas “was without jurisdiction to proceed with the cause of action on the issues as framed by the pleadings and should have granted defendant’s motion for a nonsuit;” and we concur in the view of the Chief Justice that the injury complained of is not so classable. The point was not made on the motion to nonsuit; and it is in essence one not entertain-able if raised for the first time on appeal, i. e., one that concerns the terms of the contract of service. Compare Butler v. Eberstadt, 113 N. J. L. 569.

For affirmance — The Chancellor, Case, Bodine, Donges, Heher, Portee, Colie, Dear, Wells, WolesKeil, Raeeeety, Hague, Thompson, JJ. 13.

For reversal — Hone.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

19 A.2d 778, 126 N.J.L. 426, 1941 N.J. LEXIS 332, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dailey-v-mutual-chemical-co-of-america-nj-1941.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack