Legal Opinion

Gordon v. Amoskeag Manufacturing Co.

Supreme Court of New Hampshire

Decided February 7, 1928PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMarble, J.

Neither employer nor employee is required to accept the provisions of the workmen’s compensation act. But employers who fail to file their acceptance with the commissioner of labor are denied certain common-law defences. Boody v. Company, 77 N. H. 208. And an injured workman who has elected to receive compensation under the act is compelled to abide by such election. Sullivan &c. Co. v. Stowell, 80 N. H. 158. If he seeks to recover for his injury at common law, he is barred from the benefits of the statute (Strong v. Company, 82 N. H. 221); and if he has availed himself of the statute by…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Behr v. SothSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1927
  2. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad v. HealyNebraska Supreme Court · 1906
  3. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad v. OlsenNebraska Supreme Court · 1903

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. LaBonte v. National Gypsum Co.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1970
  2. Jeune v. Industrial CommissionArizona Supreme Court · 1954
  3. Ott v. St. Paul Union StockyardsSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1929
  4. Davis v. W. T. Grant Co.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1938
  5. Dubuc v. Amoskeag Industries, Inc.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1940

4 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