Turner v. Albany Coca-Cola Bottling Co.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Turner v. Albany Coca-Cola Bottling Co.

123 S.E. 910, 32 Ga. App. 518, 1924 Ga. App. LEXIS 518

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJuly 22, 1924

Docket14927

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 123 S.E. 910 (Turner v. Albany Coca-Cola Bottling 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

Turner v. Albany Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 123 S.E. 910, 32 Ga. App. 518, 1924 Ga. App. LEXIS 518 (Ga. Ct. App. 1924).

Pincite

Opinion

Stephens, J.

1. Subsection & of section 67 of the workmen’s compensation act of 1920 (Ga. L. 1920, p. 167), which imposes certain penalties upon an employer affected by the act, among which is the deprivation of the employer’s right to come under the act and to be exempt from an action at common law by an injured employee, does not penalize the refusal or neglect of an employer to perform the duty, imposed upon him under subsection a of that section, to file with the commission within thirty days after the act goes into effect “evidence satisfactory to the commission of his compliance with.the provisions of section 66 and all others relating thereto.”

[519]*519Decided July 22, 1924. Aslcew & Mather, for plaintiff. Hill & Gibson, for defendant.

2. Under the foregoing ruling the defendant employer came within the terms of the workmen’s compensation act, and the petition, filed in the superior court by the employee, seeking to recover in tort at common law, for an injury received July 19, 1921, failed to set out a cause of action, and was properly dismissed on general demurrer.

Judgment affirmed.

Jenkins, P. J., and Bell, J., concur.

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

Stephens, J.

1. Subsection & of section 67 of the workmen’s compensation act of 1920 (Ga. L. 1920, p. 167), which imposes certain penalties upon an employer affected by the act, among which is the deprivation of the employer’s right to come under the act and to be exempt from an action at common law by an injured employee, does not penalize the refusal or neglect of an employer to perform the duty, imposed upon him under subsection a of that section, to file with the commission within thirty days after the act goes into effect “evidence satisfactory to the commission of his compliance with.the provisions of section 66 and all others relating thereto.”

[519]*519Decided July 22, 1924. Aslcew & Mather, for plaintiff. Hill & Gibson, for defendant.

2. Under the foregoing ruling the defendant employer came within the terms of the workmen’s compensation act, and the petition, filed in the superior court by the employee, seeking to recover in tort at common law, for an injury received July 19, 1921, failed to set out a cause of action, and was properly dismissed on general demurrer.

Judgment affirmed.

Jenkins, P. J., and Bell, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

123 S.E. 910, 32 Ga. App. 518, 1924 Ga. App. LEXIS 518, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/turner-v-albany-coca-cola-bottling-co-gactapp-1924.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack