From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Salotar v. F. Neuglass Co.

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Jan 20, 1920
126 N.E. 922 (N.Y. 1920)

Opinion

Argued January 5, 1920

Decided January 20, 1920

T. Carlysle Jones, William H. Foster and James B. Henney for appellants.

Charles D. Newton, Attorney-General ( E.C. Aiken of counsel), for respondent.


Order of Appellate Division and award of industrial commission modified so as to provide that increase in compensation shall not take effect prior to October 16, 1918, and so modified affirmed, with costs to appellants against the industrial commission; no opinion.

Concur: CHASE, COLLIN, CARDOZO, CRANE and ANDREWS, JJ. Dissenting and voting for affirmance: POUND, J. Not voting: HISCOCK, Ch. J.


Summaries of

Matter of Salotar v. F. Neuglass Co.

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Jan 20, 1920
126 N.E. 922 (N.Y. 1920)
Case details for

Matter of Salotar v. F. Neuglass Co.

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of the Claim of ANNIE SALOTAR, Respondent, against F…

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Jan 20, 1920

Citations

126 N.E. 922 (N.Y. 1920)
126 N.E. 922

Citing Cases

Polucci v. Norris Co.

Such conclusion is upheld in Beckmann v. Oelerich Son ( 174 App. Div. 353) and Kriegbaum v. Buffalo Wire…

Matter of Schaefer v. Buffalo Steel Car Co.

The reference to increased wages under subdivision 5 of section 14 deals with the method of arriving at the…