Legal Opinion

TH Mastín & Company v. Loveday

Tennessee Supreme Court

Decided December 6, 1957PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtJustice Tomlinson

Loveday received an injury admittedly compensable under the Workmen’s Compensation Statute. T.C.A. sec. 50-901 et seq. The accident occurred in Blount County where his employer maintained an office. Loveday brought suit in Sevier County where he, Loveday, resided. He sued only the insurer, a non-resident corporation, with no designated agent for acceptance of service in Tennessee other than the State Commissioner of Insurance. The subpoena was so served. The insurer, by plea in abatement, asserted that the venue “is in Blount County and not Sevier County, Tennessee”. The Trial Judge overruled…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. HayTennessee Supreme Court · 1929
  2. Cartmell v. Mechanics' Ins. Co.Tennessee Supreme Court · 1934
  3. Flowers v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.Tennessee Supreme Court · 1948
  4. Brown v. Stone & Webster Engineering Corp.Tennessee Supreme Court · 1944

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Five Star Express, Inc. v. DavisTennessee Supreme Court · 1993
  2. General Accident Fire & Life Assurance Corp. v. KirklandTennessee Supreme Court · 1962
  3. Insurance Co. of North America Inc. v. LaneTennessee Supreme Court · 1965
  4. Hawkins v. Consolidated Aluminum Corp.Tennessee Supreme Court · 1987
  5. Human v. Liberty Mutual InsuranceTennessee Supreme Court · 1966

3 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