[Download] "Echols v. Chattooga Mercantile Company" by Court of Appeals of Georgia ~ Book PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: Echols v. Chattooga Mercantile Company
- Author : Court of Appeals of Georgia
- Release Date : January 13, 1946
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 52 KB
Description
R. E. Echols brought an action for damages resulting from personal injuries, alleged to have been inflicted by J. E. Berry, against Chattooga Mercantile Company and its manager J. E. Berry in the Superior Court of Chattooga County. It is unnecessary to state the allegations of the petition and answer, as the case went to trial before a jury on a stipulated set of facts on the defendants' plea in bar. The stipulated facts are: ""It is agreed between counsel that at no time has Chattooga Mercantile Company had as many as ten employees; that on or about May 27, 1943, the defendant, Chattooga Mercantile Company, elected to come under the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act of Georgia, and in order to effectuate said election, a notice to the Industrial Board (State Board of Workmen's Compensation) signed by the defendant, Chattooga Mercantile Company, and each of the employees in its employment at that time was sent to the Industrial Board of Georgia, at Atlanta, Georgia, and at the same time a copy of said notice, together with the signature of the employer and all employees, was duly posted in a conspicuous place in the place of business of the Chattooga Mercantile Company and remained so posted until on or about the 1st day of March, 1945, when the same was removed by the painters redecorating the said building and the same has not been replaced since said date. That R. E. Echols did not sign the notice and was never notified of it and never saw it where it was posted . . . and that R. E. Echols went to work at the Chattooga Mercantile Company in May, 1944, and worked until March 26, 1945."" The court directed a verdict for the defendants upon the plea in bar. The plaintiff filed his motion for a new trial, as amended, which was overruled, and he now excepts.