Synkus v. Big Muddy Coal & Iron Co.

Appellate Court of Illinois

Synkus v. Big Muddy Coal & Iron Co.

190 Ill. App. 602

CourtAppellate Court of Illinois

DecidedJuly 28, 1914

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 190 Ill. App. 602 (Synkus v. Big Muddy Coal & Iron Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Court of Illinois primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Synkus v. Big Muddy Coal & Iron Co., 190 Ill. App. 602 (Ill. Ct. App. 1914).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice Harris

delivered the opinion of the court.

2. Workmen’s Compensation Act, § 2*—burden of proving election to come under act. In an action against an employer for personal injuries, where the employer claims to have elected to come under the Workmen’s Compensation Act of 1911, the plaintiff has the burden of proving that defendant had rejected the act by showing that the proper notice had been filed with the Bureau named in the act. 3. Workmen’s Compensation Act, § 2*—when employer deprived of common-law defenses. An employer who has elected to reject the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act of 1911 is deprived of his common-law defenses though the employee has not elected to come under the act. 4. Workmen’s Compensation Act, . § 2*—evidence admissible to prove election. In proving that an employer elected to reject the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act of 1911, a copy of the notice of election certified to by the person charged with 'the custody of the original is admissible as the best evidence.

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

Mr. Justice Harris

delivered the opinion of the court.

2. Workmen’s Compensation Act, § 2*—burden of proving election to come under act. In an action against an employer for personal injuries, where the employer claims to have elected to come under the Workmen’s Compensation Act of 1911, the plaintiff has the burden of proving that defendant had rejected the act by showing that the proper notice had been filed with the Bureau named in the act. 3. Workmen’s Compensation Act, § 2*—when employer deprived of common-law defenses. An employer who has elected to reject the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act of 1911 is deprived of his common-law defenses though the employee has not elected to come under the act. 4. Workmen’s Compensation Act, . § 2*—evidence admissible to prove election. In proving that an employer elected to reject the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act of 1911, a copy of the notice of election certified to by the person charged with 'the custody of the original is admissible as the best evidence.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

190 Ill. App. 602, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/synkus-v-big-muddy-coal-iron-co-illappct-1914.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack