Strang v. Strang Elec. Co.
| Decision Date | 22 November 1930 |
| Docket Number | No. 274.,274. |
| Citation | 152 A. 242 |
| Parties | STRANG v. STRANG ELECTRIC CO. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Certiorari to Court of Common Pleas, Camden County.
Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Rebecca C. Strang, claimant, opposed by the Strang Electric Company, employer. An award was made, and the employer brings certiorari.
Judgment affirmed, and writ of certiorari dismissed.
Argued October term, 1930, before CAMPBELL and BODINE, JJ.
Carl Kisselman, of Camden, for prosecutor. Edward T. Curry, of Camden, for respondent.
The respondent, a woman sixty-four years of age, a stockholder and the treasurer of the appellant company, in returning from New Brunswick in an automobile operated by her son, the president of the prosecutor company, was injured, and she has an award under the Workmen's Compensation Act (P. L. 1911, p. 131, as amended). It appears that the prosecutor is a corporation organized under the law of this state and has its office in Camden, it also has a place of business in Philadelphia.
The respondent was not only a stockholder and treasurer of the corporation, in which latter position, she, with all other officers, drew no salary, but was also manager of its Camden office and place of business in this state. At the time in question the estimator in the employ of the company was not available, and respondent, being familiar with the business of the corporation, accompanied her son to New Brunswick for the purpose of determining whether a proposed agreement for extra work upon a contract held by the company should be engaged in. She received a salary, or compensation, of $35 per week as manager and was carried upon the pay roll, in this capacity, and for this amount. The insurance carrier based its premium charges thereon.
The only question involved here is whether, or not, the respondent was an employee or an officer.
Upon the facts in the case the deputy commissioner held, and the court of common pleas concurred, that the respondent was an employee and entitled to the benefits of the act.
We think that the facts are such that these findings should not be disturbed. Black & Sons v. Hudson County, 150 A. 672, 8 N. J. Misc. R. 442.
The judgment of the court of common pleas of Camden county will therefore be affirmed, and the writ of certiorari dismissed, with costs.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mahoney v. Nitro Form Co., A--263
...v. Court of Common Pleas, 150 A. 672, 8 N.J.Misc. 442 (Sup.Ct.1930) (part owner drawing wage of $60 weekly); Strang v. Strang Electric Co., 152 A. 242, 8 N.J.Misc. 873 (Sup.Ct.1930) (stockholder, treasurer, on salary of $35 weekly); Goldmann v. Johanna Farms, Inc., 26 N.J.Super. 550, 98 A.2......
-
Goldmann v. Johanna Farms, Inc.
...under the act. Adam Black & Sons v. Court of Common Pleas, 150 A. 672, 8 N.J.Misc. 442 (Sup.Ct.1930); Strang v. Strang Electric Co., 152 A. 242, 8 N.J.Misc. 873 (Sup.Ct.1930); Hannaford v. Central R. Co. of N.J., 115 N.J.L. 573, 181 A. 306 (Sup.Ct.1935); McGiffin v. Peoples Burner & Fuel Co......
-
Stevens v. Indus. Comm'n
...compensation for his work as such.’ Columbia Casualty Co. v. Industrial Comm., 200 Wis. 8, 227 N. W. 292;Strang v. Strang Electric Co., 152 A. 242, 8 N. J. Misc. R. 873, and Southern Surety Co. v. Childers, 87 Okl. 261, 209 P. 927, 25 A. L. R. 373, are decisions of the same kind. The defend......
-
Mahoney v. Nitroform Co.
...that status. Adam Black & Sons, Inc. v. Court of Common Pleas, 150 A. 672, 8 N.J.Misc. 442 (Sup.Ct.1930); Strang v. Strang Electric Co., 152 A. 242, 8 N.J.Misc. 873 (Sup.Ct.1930); Hannaford v. Central R. Co. of New Jersey, 115 N.J.L. 573, 576, 181 A. 306 (Sup.Ct.1935), affirmed 116 N.J.L. 4......