De Graw v. Todd Shipyards Co.
| Decision Date | 20 May 1946 |
| Docket Number | No. 32.,32. |
| Citation | 47 A.2d 338,134 N.J.L. 315 |
| Parties | DE GRAW v. TODD SHIPYARDS CO. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Supreme Court.
Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Harvey DeGraw, claimant, opposed by the Todd Shipyards Company, employer. An award of compensation by the Workmen's Compensation Bureau was affirmed by the court of common pleas, 43 A.2d 879, 23 N.J.Misc. 298, and from a judgment of the Supreme Court, 44 A.2d 513, 133 N.J.L. 402, dismissing a writ of certiorari, the employer appeals.
Judgment affirmed.
Walter H. Jones, of Newark (Isidore Kalisch, of Newark, of counsel), for appellant.
Isadore Rabinowitz, of Paterson, and Hein & Smith, of Hackensack, for respondent.
Harvey DeGraw was employed by Todd Shipyards Co. as a pipefitter. On January 20, 1944 he sustained injuries in an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. He filed a petition in the Workmen's Compensation Bureau where an award was entered in his favor. On appeal to the Hudson County Court of Common Pleas, that court affirmed. Certiorari was allowed and upon the return to the writ, a judgment of dismissal was entered. The employer, Todd Shipyards Co., appeals from the judgment of dismissal.
The sole issue for decision is one of jurisdiction, i.e. Is the New Jersey Workmen's Compensation Bureau or the United States Employees' Compensation Commission the proper forum in which the injured employee should seek compensation?
The facts follow. Todd Shipyards Co. was engaged in the business of repairing and converting ships at its shipyard in Hoboken, New Jersey. It is stipulated that the waters of the Hudson River at that point are navigable waters of the United States. In December 1943 the S. S. Fred Morris was brought to the shipyard, dry-docked for the purpose of a hull survey to ascertain whether she could be converted from a freighter to an A. P. Attack-transport. It is clear from the evidence that the placing of the Morris in dry-dock was solely for the purpose of hull inspection and upon the completion thereof she was returned to the water, moored to the dock, and pipe lines were run aboard her from the dock alongside. Her fuel oil bunkers were emptied in accordance with Coast Guard regulations and the work of reconversion proceeded. The nature of the work was a complete conversion from a freighter to a navy transport. The extent of the operation may be judged from the fact that the entire operation commenced December 23, 1943 and ended on March 15, 1944. The injured workman testified that the work ‘Was really a conversion job’;...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Moores
...jurisdiction in a very similar case in part for similar reasons. The Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey in De Graw v. Todd Shipyards Co., 134 N.J.L. 315, 47 A.2d 338, upheld State jurisdiction in a similar case but without citing the Davis case. The Supreme Court of the United States......
-
Johnson v. Texas Emp. Ins. Ass'n, 8013
...Charles Stevedores, 95 So.2d 830 (La.App.1957), cert. denied 355 U.S. 952, 78 S.Ct. 535, 2 L.Ed.2d 529 (1958); De Graw v. Todd Shipyards Co., 134 N.J.L. 315, 47 A.2d 338 (1946), cert. denied 329 U.S. 759, 67 S.Ct. 113, 91 L.Ed. 655 (1946); Behrle v. London Guarantee & Accident Co., 76 R.I. ......
-
Hardt v. Cunningham.
...Ship Co. v. Rohde, 257 U. S. 469, 42 S.Ct. 157, 66 L.Ed. 321, 25 A.L.R. 1008; Ford v. Parker, supra; DeGraw v. Todd Shipyards Co., 134 N.J.L. 315, 47 A.2d 338. And in the Davis case, the State Compensation Act, unlike our own, applied to ‘all employees and workmen * * * engaged in maritime ......
-
Dunleavy v. Tietjen & Lang Dry Docks
...Co., 23 N.J.Misc. 298, 43 A.2d 879 (Comm. Pleas 1945), cert. dismissed 133 N.J.L. 402, 44 A.2d 513 (Sup.Ct.1945), affirmed 134 N.J.L. 315, 47 A.2d 338 (E. & A.1946), there were prior federal payments totalling $17. The reason such payments did not avail against state jurisdiction is that th......