Troth v. Millville Bottle Works
| Decision Date | 19 June 1916 |
| Citation | 98 A. 435 |
| Parties | TROTH v. MILLVILLE BOTTLE WORKS. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Appeal from Supreme Court.
Certiorari by Edgar L. Troth against the Millville Bottle Works, to review an order on defendant to pay petitioner a certain sum under the Workmen's Compensation Act. Judgment was affirmed in the Supreme Court (91 Atl. 1031). From the judgment of affirmance, defendant appeals. Judgment affirmed.
Louis H. Miller, of Millville, for appellant. Wescott & Weaver, of Camden, for appellee.
The present action was instituted in the court of common pleas of Cumberland county under the Workmen's Compensation Act of 1911 (Pamph. Laws, p. 134). The plaintiff was a minor engaged in the service of the defendant company, and was injured by being struck in the eye with the handle of a mold-making machine which he was operating at the time of the injury. The trial court held that he was entitled to the benefits of the statute, and awarded him compensation accordingly. Upon review by the Supreme Court the award was affirmed, and from the judgment of affirmance the present appeal is taken.
The first contention made before us is that the case is not within the statute, for the reason that the defendant company had refused to accept its provisions, and had notified the plaintiff and his parent (by whom the minor's contract was made) of such refusal, before the happening of the accident. Upon this point we concur in the conclusion reached by the Supreme Court, and in the reasoning upon which it is based.
It is further contended that the supplement to the Workmen's Compensation Act, approved May 2, 1911 (Pamph. Laws, p. 763), is unconstitutional, so far as it applies to the present case, for the reason that the contract of hiring was entered into before the enactment of the original statute, and that its obligations are impaired thereby. Section 2 of the original act provided that the parties to a contract of employment might agree between themselves that the scheme provided by that section should become a provision of their contract, and should then be the sole measure of the obligation of the employer for injuries received by the employé by accident arising out of and in the course of the employment, and the sole measure of the compensation to which the employé should be entitled for injuries so received. It further provided that, in all contracts of employment made after the statute went into effect, it should be presumed that the parties to it had accepted the provisions of the section, and had agreed to be bound thereby, unless there should be a written notice given by one of the parties to the other, prior to any accident, that such provisions were not intended to apply. The supplement now attacked, so far as it affects the present case, declares that:
"Every contract of hiring now in operation shall, after this act takes effect, be presumed to continue subject to the provisions of section 2 of the act to which this is a supplement unless either party shall, prior to accident, in writing notify the other party to such contract that the provisions of section 2 are not intended to apply."
In the case of Sexton v. Newark District Telegraph Co., 86 N. J. Law, 701, 91 Atl. 1070, we had occasion to consider the effect of this supplement upon a contract of hiring entered into after its enactment, but prior to the date upon which it went into effect, and held that it violated no constitutional rights of the parties to that contract, adopting the view of Mr. Justice Trenchard in an opinion delivered in the Supreme Court. 84 N. J. Law, 85, 86...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hogue v. Wurdack
...reject, see Sechler v. Pastore, 103 Colo. 139, 84 P.2d 61; Walerius v. Foldesi, 206 Minn. 521, 289 N.W. 55, 57(3); Troth v. Millville Bottle Works, 89 N.J.L. 219, 98 A. 435(1); Avre v. Sexton, 110 Neb. 149, 193 N.W. 342, 343; Beveridge v. Illinois Fuel Co., 283 Ill. 31, 119 N.E. 46, 47(3); ......
-
Bendler v. Bendler
...701, 91 A. 1070 (E. & A. 1914); Winfield v. Erie Railroad Co., 88 N.J.L. 619, 96 A. 394 (E. & A. 1916); Troth v. Millville Bottle Works, 89 N.J.L. 219, 98 A. 435 (E. & A. 1916); Steinmetz v. Snead & Co., 123 N.J.L. 497, 9 A.2d 801 (Sup.Ct. 1939), affirmed 124 N.J.L. 450, 12 A.2d 678 (E. & A......
-
McAllister v. Board of Ed., Town of Kearny
...in spite of the express terms of such contracts, and not by the action of the parties but by their inaction, Troth v. Millville Bottle Works, 89 N.J.L. 219, 98 A. 435 (E. & A. 1916); Sexton v. Newark Dist. Telegraph Co., 84 N.J.L. 85, 86 A. 451 (Sup.Ct.1913), affirmed o.b. 86 N.J.L. 701, 91......
-
Levine v. Blumenthal
...upon to consider that question. See Kerzner v. Chanin, 98 N.J. Law, 38, 118 A. 693; Long v. Hartwell, supra; Troth v. Millville Bottle Works, 89 N.J.Law, 219, 98 A. 435; Headley v. Cavileer, 82 N.J.Law, 635, 82 A. 908, 48 L. R.A.(N.S.) 564; Wilkinson v. Plaket, 138 A. 517, 5 N.J.Misc. 853, ......