From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hockley v. Wilson

Circuit Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit
Apr 3, 1934
70 F.2d 108 (4th Cir. 1934)

Opinion

No. 3586.

April 3, 1934.

Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore, in Equity; W. Calvin Chesnut, Judge.

Petition by David E. Wilson against Chester F. Hockley and another, receivers of the Davison Chemical Company. From a decree for petitioner ( 4 F. Supp. 294), defendants appeal.

Affirmed.

Wilson K. Barnes and G. Ridgely Sappington, both of Baltimore, Md., for appellants.

Rowland K. Adams, of Baltimore, Md. (O. Bowie Duckett, Jr., of Baltimore, Md., on the brief), for appellee.

Before PARKER and SOPER, Circuit Judges, and BAKER, District Judge.


For the reasons given in the opinion of Judge Chesnut in the District Court, Pyrites Co., Inc., v. Davison Chemical Co.,

4 F. Supp. 294, it is held that compensation awards in Maryland under the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act ( 33 US CA 901 et seq.) are entitled to preference against the employer without limit of amount, and the decree of the District Court is affirmed.


Summaries of

Hockley v. Wilson

Circuit Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit
Apr 3, 1934
70 F.2d 108 (4th Cir. 1934)
Case details for

Hockley v. Wilson

Case Details

Full title:HOCKLEY et al. v. WILSON

Court:Circuit Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

Date published: Apr 3, 1934

Citations

70 F.2d 108 (4th Cir. 1934)

Citing Cases

Myers v. Bethlehem Steel Co.

See Pyrites Co. v. Davison Chemical Co., D.C.Md.1933, 4 F.Supp. 294, 296-297, 298, affirmed Hockley v.…

In re Davison Chemical Co.

Royall and Moore, more particularly hereinafter referred to. Other litigations conducted by Mr. Sappington…