From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Peake v. Lakin

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
May 8, 1917
116 N.E. 1063 (N.Y. 1917)

Summary

In Matter of Peake v. Lakin (221 N.Y. 496) the question of fact was whether claimant was an employee of Lakin, the defendant, who had a contract with a third party to peel and load certain bark, or a co-contractor with Lakin. It was held that he was an employee of the defendant.

Summary of this case from Matter of Beach v. Velzy

Opinion

Submitted April 23, 1917

Decided May 8, 1917

Joseph F. Murray and Robert M. McCormack for appellants.

Egburt E. Woodbury, Attorney-General ( E.C. Aiken of counsel), for respondents.


Order affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: HISCOCK, Ch. J., CHASE, HOGAN, CARDOZO, CRANE and ANDREWS, JJ. Not voting: McLAUGHLIN, J.


Summaries of

Matter of Peake v. Lakin

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
May 8, 1917
116 N.E. 1063 (N.Y. 1917)

In Matter of Peake v. Lakin (221 N.Y. 496) the question of fact was whether claimant was an employee of Lakin, the defendant, who had a contract with a third party to peel and load certain bark, or a co-contractor with Lakin. It was held that he was an employee of the defendant.

Summary of this case from Matter of Beach v. Velzy
Case details for

Matter of Peake v. Lakin

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of the Claim of BESSIE PEAKE et al., Respondents, v . FRED…

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: May 8, 1917

Citations

116 N.E. 1063 (N.Y. 1917)
116 N.E. 1063

Citing Cases

People v. Greenstein

( Matter of Beach v. Velzy, 238 N.Y. 100.) This case seems to be closely analogous to Peake v. Lakin ( 176…

Matter of McNally v. Diamond Mills Paper Co.

His position was like that of the claimant in Thompson v. Twiss ( 90 Conn. 444, 448, 449), where compensation…