Ginnochio v. Hydraulic Press Brick Co.
District Court, S.D. Ohio
At Taw. Action by Charles Ginnochio, administrator, against the Hyraulic Press Brick Company. On demurrer to second and third •defenses of answer to second amended petition.
1Opinion of the Court
SATER, District Judge.
[1] The charge made in the second amended petition is briefly as follows: The decedent, Curcio, while engaged in the course of his employment by defendant, on account of its negligence met with an injury on January 2, 1914, in consequence of which he died on the day following. The defendant regularly employed at that time more than five workmen and operatives in and about its business and establishment, and had not paid into the insurance fund, as provided by the Workmen’s Compensation Act of Ohio, passed March 14, 1913 (103 Ohio Taws, p. 72), any sum for the benefit of…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Gelpcke v. DubuqueSupreme Court of the United States · 1864
- United States v. MooreSupreme Court of the United States · 1878
- United States v. BabbitSupreme Court of the United States · 1862
- Taylor v. MasonSupreme Court of the United States · 1824
- Gelpcke v. DubuqueSupreme Court of the United States · 1863
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Walker v. Sheffield Steel Corp.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1930