Dailey v. Stoll

137 N.Y.S. 1116 Court N.Y. App. Div. Decision date 1912-10-16 English

Decision Majority — PER CURIAM. · Dissent — MCLENNAN, P. J., and FOOTE, J.,

Contents

p. 1116

DAILEY, Respondent, v. STOLL, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

October 16, 1912.)

Headnote

Action by De Ross Dailey against Daniel H. Stoll.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.

dissent, upon the grounds, first, that service of notice under the Employer’s Liability Act was not waived; and, second, that, if the bolt was improperly suspended, it was a detail of the work, for which defendant was not liable.