Coulter v. Royal Indemnity Co.
Court of Appeals of Georgia
1Opinion of the CourtGardner, P. J.
For the requirements as to notice of accident, see Code §§ 114-303 and 114-304. Counsel for the claimant contends that notice as required by law was given and that therefore the award was based on an erroneous finding of fact and conclusion which was not sustained by evidence or law. The evidence shows that, immediately after the accident in question the claimant's foreman got the claimant’s time card and sent the claimant to the personnel office to be checked out; that the personnel officer was in a meeting and was contacted by telephone by his secretary; that the secretary was told to tell…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Lumbermen's Mutual Casualty Co. v. GriggsSupreme Court of Georgia · 1940
- Merry Bros. Brick & Tile Co. v. HolmesCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1938
- Davison-Paxon Co. v. FordCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1953
- Railway Express Agency Inc. v. HarperCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1944
- Glens Falls Indemnity Co. v. SockwellCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1938
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Royal Indemnity Co. v. CoulterSupreme Court of Georgia · 1957
- Crider's Furs, Inc. v. AtkinsonCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1996