Mobley v. Durham Iron Co.
Court of Appeals of Georgia
1Opinion of the CourtSutton, C. J.
(After stating the foregoing facts.), It is conceded by the defendant in its brief that “the petition is not technically subject to general demurrer on the ground that it appears therefrom that the plaintiff’s remedy for the injury sustained was under the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act.” The facts shown by the petition in this respect are that the plaintiff had been employed by the defendant, and, on the day of his injury, he was to commence work at 2 p. m.; that he arrived on the defendant’s premises at 1:40 or 1:45 p. m., although he was not required by the defendant to arrive…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Holman v. American Automobile Insurance CompanySupreme Court of Georgia · 1946
- Hockmuth v. PerkinsCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1937
- Reid v. Lummus Cotton-Gin Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1938
- Holliday v. Merchants & Miners Transportation Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1924
- Snowball v. Seaboard Air-Line RailwaySupreme Court of Georgia · 1908
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.