Matter of Dingfeldt v. Albee Godfrey Whale Creek Co.

7 N.E.2d 676, 273 N.Y. 527, 1937 N.Y. LEXIS 1269
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Matter of Dingfeldt v. Albee Godfrey Whale Creek Co.. Read the opinion of the Court — 272 N.Y. 623
New York Court of Appeals·Decided March 2, 1937·Published

Opinion

Motion to amend remittitur granted. Return of remittitur requested and when returned it will be amended by adding thereto the following:

"A question under the Federal Constitution was presented and necessarily passed upon by this Court. *Page 528 The appellants contended that the subject of the cause was maritime and within the exclusive admiralty jurisdiction of the United States by virtue of Article 3, Section 2 of the Constitution of the United States and of Section 24, Clause 3 and of Section 256 of the United States Judicial Code, U.S.C. Title 28, Sections 31 and 371, and that the provisions of the New York Workmen's Compensation Law, Chapter 615 of the Laws of 1922, and the amendments thereto are not applicable.

"This Court held that the Workmen's Compensation Law of the State of New York applied, that the Federal Courts did not have exclusive jurisdiction to afford relief and that the accident did arise out of and in the course of the decedent's employment." (See 272 N.Y. 623.)

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

Matter of Dingfeldt v. Albee Godfrey Whale Creek Co., 7 N.E.2d 676, 273 N.Y. 527, 1937 N.Y. LEXIS 1269 (N.Y. 1937).

7 N.E.2d 676 (Matter of Dingfeldt v. Albee Godfrey Whale Creek Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Matter of Dingfeldt v. Albee Godfrey Whale Creek Co.
5 N.E.2d 362 (New York Court of Appeals, 1936)