State ex rel. Trumbull Steel Co. v. Industrial Commission

Ohio Supreme Court

State ex rel. Trumbull Steel Co. v. Industrial Commission

1 Ohio Law. Abs. 10

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedJuly 1, 1922

DocketNo. 17252

StatusPublished

This text of 1 Ohio Law. Abs. 10 (State ex rel. Trumbull Steel Co. v. Industrial Commission) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State ex rel. Trumbull Steel Co. v. Industrial Commission, 1 Ohio Law. Abs. 10 (Ohio 1922).

Pincite

Opinion

JONES, J.:

1. The application of an administrator to the probate court, under favor of Section 10772, General Code, for consent to make settlement for injuries resulting in the death of his decedent while in the course of employment, is not the institution of proceedings in the courts for damage, within the contemplation of Section 1465-76, General Code.

2. The obtaining of such consent by the administrator and the execution of a release of. damage by the dependent, do not constitute a waiver by the latter of her claim for compensation; nor do they preclude such dependent from thereafter making application therefor.

Writ denied.

Marshal, C. J., Hough, Wanamaker, Robinson and/ Matthias, JJ., concur. Clark, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.

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

JONES, J.:

1. The application of an administrator to the probate court, under favor of Section 10772, General Code, for consent to make settlement for injuries resulting in the death of his decedent while in the course of employment, is not the institution of proceedings in the courts for damage, within the contemplation of Section 1465-76, General Code.

2. The obtaining of such consent by the administrator and the execution of a release of. damage by the dependent, do not constitute a waiver by the latter of her claim for compensation; nor do they preclude such dependent from thereafter making application therefor.

Writ denied.

Marshal, C. J., Hough, Wanamaker, Robinson and/ Matthias, JJ., concur. Clark, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 Ohio Law. Abs. 10, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-trumbull-steel-co-v-industrial-commission-ohio-1922.