Legal Opinion

Integrity Mutual Casualty Co. v. Hankins

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Decided January 13, 1925No. 15965PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBloodworti-i, J.

(After stating the foregoing facts.)

In the application for an appeal to the superior court the insurance carrier complains that the commission erred in holding that although Cranston Hankins was “mentally incompetent, it was not necessary for him to prosecute his claim by or through a guardian or trustee as provided in section 47 of the Georgia compensation law.” However, it does not appear that this question was raised on the hearing before Commissioner Kilburn or when the case was before the full commission; so this question is not properly before this court for consideration.

The only…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. New Amsterdam Casualty Co. v. SumrellCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1923
  2. American Mutual Liability Insurance v. AdamsCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1924
  3. Heaton v. PuckettCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1924
  4. Puckett v. HeatonSupreme Court of Georgia · 1924

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Pacific Employers Insurance Co. v. WestSupreme Court of Georgia · 1957
  2. Pruitt v. Ocean Accident & Guarantee Corp.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1934
  3. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. ChristianCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1926
  4. Martin v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1938
  5. Payton v. Fidelity & Casualty Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1933

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API