Russell v. Shelton

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Russell v. Shelton

1 S.E.2d 225, 59 Ga. App. 496, 1939 Ga. App. LEXIS 333

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJanuary 23, 1939

Docket27228

StatusPublished

This text of 1 S.E.2d 225 (Russell v. Shelton) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Russell v. Shelton, 1 S.E.2d 225, 59 Ga. App. 496, 1939 Ga. App. LEXIS 333 (Ga. Ct. App. 1939).

Pincite

Opinion

Eelton, J.

1. Tlie jurisdiction of the Industrial Board to assess damages and attorney’s fees against an employer for refusing or wilfully neglecting to comply with the provisions of the workmen’s compensation act is as full and complete where an agreement is submitted to it for approval as it is when an application for compensation is being heard and determined. In either case it is the duty of the board to see that the provisions of the law are complied with. Code, § 114-603.

2. The evidence authorized the assessment against the employer for refusal or wilful neglect to comply with the provisions of the act. It was not error for the judge of the superior court to affirm the award. Elliott Addressing Machine Co. v. Howard, 59 Ga. App. 62 (200 S. E. 340). Judgment affirmed.

Stephens, P. J., and Sutton, J., concur.

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

Eelton, J.

1. Tlie jurisdiction of the Industrial Board to assess damages and attorney’s fees against an employer for refusing or wilfully neglecting to comply with the provisions of the workmen’s compensation act is as full and complete where an agreement is submitted to it for approval as it is when an application for compensation is being heard and determined. In either case it is the duty of the board to see that the provisions of the law are complied with. Code, § 114-603.

2. The evidence authorized the assessment against the employer for refusal or wilful neglect to comply with the provisions of the act. It was not error for the judge of the superior court to affirm the award. Elliott Addressing Machine Co. v. Howard, 59 Ga. App. 62 (200 S. E. 340). Judgment affirmed.

Stephens, P. J., and Sutton, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 S.E.2d 225, 59 Ga. App. 496, 1939 Ga. App. LEXIS 333, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/russell-v-shelton-gactapp-1939.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack