Legal Opinion

Cambridge Manufacturing Co. v. Johnson

Court of Appeals of Maryland

Decided January 15, 1931No. [No. 73, October Term, 1930.]PublishedCited by 28 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtDigges, J.

The record in this case presents two- questions for our determination, both of which arise out of a claim made under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, codified as article 101. The Cambridge Manufacturing Company, one of the appellants, is engaged in the business of manufacturing, mixing, and selling’ poultry and dairy food. The original claimant, Samuel Richard Johnson, now deceased, was employed in this work from September, 1923, to- October 17th, 1928; and at the time of his leaving, and for more- than two years prior thereto^ he had been foreman.- The operation of mixing the feed caused the…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. United States Mutual Accident Ass'n v. BarrySupreme Court of the United States · 1889
  2. Slacum v. JolleyCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1927
  3. Dickson Construction & Repair Co. v. BeasleyCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1924
  4. Standard Gas Equipment Corp. v. BaldwinCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1927
  5. Adlemen v. Ocean Accident & Guarantee Corp.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1917

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by28 opinions

  1. Schemmel v. T. B. Gatch & Sons Contracting & Building Co.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1933
  2. J. Norman Geipe, Inc. v. CollettCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1937
  3. Gorman v. Atlantic Gulf & Pacific Co.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1940
  4. Stancliff v. H. B. Davis Co.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 2001
  5. Switkes v. John McShain, Inc.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1953

23 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