Legal Opinion
Hull v. Hercules Powder Co.
Supreme Court of New Jersey
Decided January 13, 1942PublishedCited by 1 opinion
1Opinion of the Court
Wolbbk, C. C. J.
This matter comes before me on a motion of the defendant Hercules Powder Company to strike the complaint in both cases on the following grounds:
1. The rights and remedy of the plaintiff in the .above causes are controlled and determined by the Workmen’s Compensation Act, B. S. 34:15-1, et seq.; N. J. S. A. 34:15-1, et seq. .
2. Decedent, Koy S. Hull, Jr., accepted the benefits of B. S. 34:15-1, et seq.; N. J. S. A. 34:15-1, et seq., and this plaintiff is bound by and succeeds only to the rights of decerdent, Eoy S. Hull, Jr.
*1693. The complaint does not set forth a legal canse of…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Laubheim v. De Koninglyke Nederlandsche Stoomboot MaatschappyNew York Court of Appeals · 1887
- Gregutis v. Waclark Wire WorksSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1914
- Drake v. C. v. Hill & Co.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1936
- Newcomb v. AlbertsonSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1914
- Tutino v. Ford Motor Co.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1933
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Cohrs v. Igoe Brothers, Inc.New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1962