From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Theyken v. Diplomat Products Inc.

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Oct 15, 1935
198 N.E. 543 (N.Y. 1935)

Summary

In Matter of Theyken v. Diplomat Products, Inc. (268 N.Y. 658) it appeared that the claimant's husband was a traveling salesman for the Diplomat Products, Inc., and lived in Port Jefferson, Long Island. He spent Saturday in the New York city office of his employer and, after accounting for collections, receiving instructions and conferring with other employees, he left for his home.

Summary of this case from Shauntz v. Schwegler Brothers, Inc.

Opinion

Argued October 1, 1935

Decided October 15, 1935

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.

Jeremiah F. Connor for appellants.

Carl J. Heyser for claimant, respondent.


Order affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: CRANE, Ch. J., LEHMAN, O'BRIEN, HUBBS, CROUCH, LOUGHRAN and FINCH, JJ.


Summaries of

Matter of Theyken v. Diplomat Products Inc.

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Oct 15, 1935
198 N.E. 543 (N.Y. 1935)

In Matter of Theyken v. Diplomat Products, Inc. (268 N.Y. 658) it appeared that the claimant's husband was a traveling salesman for the Diplomat Products, Inc., and lived in Port Jefferson, Long Island. He spent Saturday in the New York city office of his employer and, after accounting for collections, receiving instructions and conferring with other employees, he left for his home.

Summary of this case from Shauntz v. Schwegler Brothers, Inc.
Case details for

Matter of Theyken v. Diplomat Products Inc.

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of the Claim of NAN W. THEYKEN, Respondent, against DIPLOMAT…

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Oct 15, 1935

Citations

198 N.E. 543 (N.Y. 1935)
198 N.E. 543

Citing Cases

Shauntz v. Schwegler Brothers, Inc.

It was held that at the time of the accident he was in the course of his employment. In Matter of Theyken v.…

Matter of Shafran v. Bd. of Educ

As a general rule, an employee does not enter into the course of his employment until he reaches the premises…