Legal Opinion

Maryland Casualty Co. v. Pillsbury

California Supreme Court

Decided June 21, 1916No. S. F. No. 7492. In BankPublishedCited by 29 opinions

APPLICATION for a Writ of Certiorari to review an award of the Industrial Accident Commission. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. Myriek & Deering, and James Walter Scott, for Petitioners.

1Opinion of the CourtMelvin, J.

Certiorari directed to the Industrial Accident Commission. The writ was issued as prayed and the return of the respondent commission reveals the following facts:

In a proceeding before the commission entitled “Charles H. Snow, Applicant, v. Jos. R. Harris, Defendant,” it was decided that Harris was responsible under the terms of the Workmen’s Compensation, Insurance and Safety Act, and an award was given accordingly. Harris was insured by the other petitioner, Maryland Casualty Company, but by the contract that corporation did not agree to indemnify him for liability which might be imposed…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Gaynor's CaseMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1914
  2. Sabella v. BrazileiroSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1914

3Cited by29 opinions

  1. Callihan v. MontgomerySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1922
  2. Fox v. Fafnir Bearing Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1928
  3. Oilmen's Reciprocal Ass'n v. GillelandTexas Commission of Appeals · 1927
  4. State ex rel. Lennon v. District CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1917
  5. Miller & Lux Inc. v. Industrial Acc. Com.California Supreme Court · 1919

24 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