Legal Opinion

McKinney v. Aston

Tennessee Supreme Court

Decided October 16, 1926PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the CourtJustice Cook

This ease involves the Workmen’s Compensation Act. Both parties appealed hut defendant filed no assignments of error. Plaintiff assigned error through which it is urged that chapter 84, Acts of 1923 amended section 27 division (d) of chapter 123, Acts of 1919, so as to increase the total maximum compensation beyond $5000. He insists that the amendatory Act increasing the weekly benefits by necessary implication increased the total amount of .compensation in the same ratio.

All rules for the construction of Statutes give way to the primary'rule that the intention of the Legislature is…

2Cited by1 opinion

  1. Clayton Paving Co. v. AppletonTennessee Supreme Court · 1931

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

Powered by the Exa API