Claim of Coleman v. Bartholomew
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Certification by the State Industrial Commission to the Appellate Division under section 23 of the Workmen’s Compensation Law (Consol. Laws, chap. 67; Laws of 1914, chap. 41)* of the following question: “ Was the employer at the time of the injury engaged in a hazardous employment within the meaning of the Workmen’s Compensation Law ? ”
1Opinion of the Court
Howard, J.:
The employer, in this instance, was a lawyer actually prac- • ticing his profession and maintaining a law office at Whitehall, 1ST. T. He was also a farmer engaged in managing and carry*123ing on farms. The Commission has found as a conclusion of fact that “ On November 14, 1914, the day when William B. Coleman received his injuries, he resided at Whitehall, N. Y., and was in the employ of A. D. Bartholomew, also of Whitehall, N. Y. Said Bartholomew owned and conducted a farm at Whitehall, N. Y. On said date Bartholomew was having some repairs made to his dairy barn and had employed…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Matter of Bargey v. . Massaro MacAroni Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1916
- Claim of Bargey v. Massaro Macaroni Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1915
- Claim of Schmidt v. BergerAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1916
3Cited by16 opinions
- Miller & Lux Inc. v. Industrial Acc. Com.California Supreme Court · 1919
- Oliphant v. HawkinsonSupreme Court of Iowa · 1921
- Fleckles v. HilleIndiana Court of Appeals · 1925
- Hight v. Industrial CommissionArizona Supreme Court · 1934
- Dillard v. JonesIdaho Supreme Court · 1937
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.