Stebbins v. Georgia Veneer & Package Co.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Stebbins v. Georgia Veneer & Package Co.

179 S.E. 649, 51 Ga. App. 56, 1935 Ga. App. LEXIS 553

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 3, 1935

Docket24329

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 179 S.E. 649 (Stebbins v. Georgia Veneer & Package Co.) 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

Stebbins v. Georgia Veneer & Package Co., 179 S.E. 649, 51 Ga. App. 56, 1935 Ga. App. LEXIS 553 (Ga. Ct. App. 1935).

Pincite

Opinion

Jenkins, P. J.

'“Where an employee has, as is provided in the workmen’s compensation act, accepted the act, his rights against the employer to recover on account of any injuries sustained by reason of the employer’s breach of any duty to the employee, arising out of the relation between them, which was that of master and servant, are determinable solely under the provisions of the act, and, as expressly provided in the act, are not determinable at common law. This is true notwithstanding the injuries complained of did not result from an accident; and therefore the employee, although he had accepted the act, could not recover compensation therefor.” Webb v. Tubize-Chatillon Corporation, 45 Ga. App. 744 (165 S. E. 775). This case has been reviewed and is adhered to. See also Holliday v. Merchants & Miners Transportation Co., 32 Ga. App. 567, 571 (124 S. E. 89).

Judgment affirmed.

Stephens mid Sutton, JJ., concur.

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

Jenkins, P. J.

'“Where an employee has, as is provided in the workmen’s compensation act, accepted the act, his rights against the employer to recover on account of any injuries sustained by reason of the employer’s breach of any duty to the employee, arising out of the relation between them, which was that of master and servant, are determinable solely under the provisions of the act, and, as expressly provided in the act, are not determinable at common law. This is true notwithstanding the injuries complained of did not result from an accident; and therefore the employee, although he had accepted the act, could not recover compensation therefor.” Webb v. Tubize-Chatillon Corporation, 45 Ga. App. 744 (165 S. E. 775). This case has been reviewed and is adhered to. See also Holliday v. Merchants & Miners Transportation Co., 32 Ga. App. 567, 571 (124 S. E. 89).

Judgment affirmed.

Stephens mid Sutton, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

179 S.E. 649, 51 Ga. App. 56, 1935 Ga. App. LEXIS 553, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stebbins-v-georgia-veneer-package-co-gactapp-1935.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack