Legal Opinion

Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Proctor

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided November 2, 1923PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Finch, J.:

It appears from the complaint that Richard A. Chartrand, Jr., an infant, was employed by the Hedden Company in New Jersey, and while in such employ was injured on July 14, 1918, by the defendant Proctor. The Hedden Company was insured by the plaintiff under the New Jersey Workmen’s Compensation Law. (See N. J. Laws of 1911, p. 134, chap. 95, as amd.; Comp. Stat. N. J. First Supp. p. 1639 et seq.) The injured infant made a claim under the said Workmen’s Compensation Law and was paid $1,368.50 by the plaintiff. The infant, through his father as guardian ad litem, the defendant in this…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. People v. . WilmerdingNew York Court of Appeals · 1893
  2. Kienle v. Fred Gretsch Realty Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1909
  3. Rosso v. Second Avenue RailroadAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1897

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1924
  2. American National Bank of Beaumont v. BiggsCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1954
  3. American National Bank of Beaumont v. BiggsCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1954

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API