Dillon v. City of St. Paul
Supreme Court of Minnesota
1DissentThomas Gallagher, Justice
I am of the opinion that payments made to decedent here under § 52 of the St. Paul charter were not made as compensation, but rather as payments for salary or for services previously rendered; hence, that § 176.11, subd. 6, providing for the deduction of “compensation” payments, is inapplicable.
It is to be noted that the workmen’s compensation act was enacted on October 1, 1913, subsequent to the adoption of the St. Paul charter. Accordingly, when § 52 came into effect, its provision for payments following injuries by city employes could not be viewed as compensation payments similar to those…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Markley v. City of St. PaulSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1919
- Hanson v. HayesSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1947
- Johnson v. WolfSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1919
- Segale v. St. Paul City Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1921
- Altona v. Electric Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1919