Legal Opinion

McNicol's Case

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Decided September 12, 1913PublishedCited by 481 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtRugg, C. J.

This is a proceeding under St. 1911, c. 751, as amended by St. 1912, c. 571, known as the workmen’s compensation act, by dependent relatives for compensation for the death of Stuart McNicol.

1. The first question is whether the deceased received an “injury arising out of and in the course of his employment,” within the meaning of those words in Part II, § 1 of the act. In order that compensation may be due the injury must both arise out of and also be received in the course of the employment. Neither alone is enough.

It is not easy nor necessary to the determination of the case at bar to give a…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Ryalls v. Mechanics' MillsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1889
  2. Opinion of the Justices to the SenateMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1911

3Cited by481 opinions

  1. Madden's CaseMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1916
  2. Voehl v. Indemnity Insurance Co. of North AmericaSupreme Court of the United States · 1933
  3. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. CardilloCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1940
  4. Larke v. John Hancock Mutual Life InsuranceSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1916
  5. Opinion of the Justices to the Senate & the House of RepresentativesMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1925

476 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