From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Cunningham v. Good Manufacturing Company

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jan 20, 1937
249 App. Div. 898 (N.Y. App. Div. 1937)

Opinion

January 20, 1937.

Present — Hill, P.J., Rhodes, McNamee, Crapser and Bliss, JJ.


The appellant claims that the Industrial Board was without jurisdiction to award compensation to this claimant under the Workmen's Compensation Law of the State of New York. The claimant answered an advertisement in a newspaper for a sales representative in the vicinity of Washington, D.C. He was requested by the employer to appear at their general office in New York and was there employed and given a sales training course and after completing the sales training course he was assigned in the States of Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina and the District of Columbia. He received his orders from New York, made all his reports to the employer's office in New York and was paid from the New York office. The employer had no factory or business office outside of New York. The claimant's duties were those of a traveling salesman. He came to New York for meetings the company held for their salesmen. The State Industrial Board was vested with jurisdiction over the claim. ( Matter of Hospers v. Smith Co., 230 N.Y. 616.) Award unanimously affirmed, with costs to the State Industrial Board, on the authority of Matter of Hospers v. Smith Co. ( 230 N.Y. 616).


Summaries of

Matter of Cunningham v. Good Manufacturing Company

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jan 20, 1937
249 App. Div. 898 (N.Y. App. Div. 1937)
Case details for

Matter of Cunningham v. Good Manufacturing Company

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of the Claim of U.G. CUNNINGHAM, Respondent, against GOOD…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department

Date published: Jan 20, 1937

Citations

249 App. Div. 898 (N.Y. App. Div. 1937)

Citing Cases

Ohlhaver v. Narron

The courts of North Carolina have consistently held that one accepting benefits under the North Carolina Act…