State ex rel. London & Lancashire Guarantee & Accident Co. v. District Court
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Upon the relation of the London & Lancashire Guarantee & Accident Company of Canada this court granted its writ of certiorari directed to the district court of Hennepin county and the Honorable William C. Leary, one of the judges thereof, to review a judgment entered in proceedings under the Workmen’s Compensation Act by Minnie C. Enstad, as administratrix of the estate of Charles P. Enstad, deceased, employee, and the Chamber of Commerce of Minneapolis, employer, and Marie…
Read the full summary
Upon the relation of the London & Lancashire Guarantee & Accident Company of Canada this court granted its writ of certiorari directed to the district court of Hennepin county and the Honorable William C. Leary, one of the judges thereof, to review a judgment entered in proceedings under the Workmen’s Compensation Act by Minnie C. Enstad, as administratrix of the estate of Charles P. Enstad, deceased, employee, and the Chamber of Commerce of Minneapolis, employer, and Marie Enstad, dependant, against relator.
1Opinion of the CourtSchaller, J.
The complaint sets out all the facts required by law, (G. S. 1913, § 8225, Workmen’s Compensation Act). The proceeding was brought by the administratrix on behalf of the dependent widow against the employer and the relator. No point was made as to misjoinder until the trial. Then the relator objected to the employer’s right to appear. The employer then adopted the allegations of the complaint. On further objection that the administratrix had no right to appear, the dependent widow was allowed to appear on her own behalf and to adopt as her own the allegations of the complaint. This was…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Humphrey v. PossSupreme Court of Alabama · 1943
- American Mutual Liability Insurance v. PatrickTennessee Supreme Court · 1928
- Braswell v. Brooks ex rel. BrooksSupreme Court of Alabama · 1957