TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Magnolia Petroleum Co. v. Walls

MAGNOLIA PETROLEUM CO. v. WALLS Et Al.

Magnolia Petroleum Co. v. Walls, 1932 OK 541, 13 P.2d 147
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of Oklahoma · State Highest Courts
Decided
July 12, 1932
Docket
No. 22519
Judges
PER CURIAM.
Citations
13 P.2d 1471932 OK 541158 Okla. 1991932 Okla. LEXIS 975

Opinion of the Court — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM.

Henry J. Walls, as claimant, filed hi® claim for compensation with the State Industrial Commission, wherein he claimed compensation against the Magnolia Petroleum Company, respondent, on account of personal injury received by reason of an accident which occurred on February 1, 1930. The said claim was filed long after the expiration of 30 days subsequent to the date of the alleged injury, and no written notice of said injury was given to the employer within the 30-day period required by section 7292, O. O. S. 1921. At the hearing had on the 26th day •of March, 1931, the respondent objected to any testimony in regard to the injury, for the reason that no notice of the accident had *200 been given to the respondent, as required by section 7292, O. O. S. 1921, which objection was overruled and exceptions allowed. At the close of the evidence introduced by the claimant, the respondent demurred for the reason that the evidence is not sufficient to constitute any claim or cause of action .against the said company, and for the further reason that the 30-day statute of limitation had run prior to the notification to the respondent of the accident, without sufficient reason being given for the failure to notify said company. The demurrer to the evidence was overruled and exceptions allowed ; no evidence was introduced on the part of the respondent. Claimant’s testimony tended to show that the employer had knowledge of the accident within a few days after it occurred.

The question of notice, or sufficiency of the excuse for failure to give such notice, was thus put in issue, but the Commission failed to imake a finding upon same. The respondents have filed confession of error.

Under the decision of this court in Pioneer Gas Utility Co. v. Howard, 154 Okla. 239 , 7 P. (2d) 435 , and upon the authority of said decision, the award is vacated, and this cause is remanded to the State Industrial Commission for further proceedings.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1933: 11935: 21943: 119332026peak 1935 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Greer County Gins v. Dunnington1933 OK 616, 27 P.2d 630
  2. Evans-Wallower Lead Co. v. Byrd1935 OK 1121, 51 P.2d 497
  3. Gulf Oil Corporation v. Kyes1943 OK 409, 151 P.2d 785
  4. Southwestern Light & Power Co. v. Pittman1935 OK 1026, 50 P.2d 298

Most recent

  1. Gulf Oil Corporation v. Kyes1943 OK 409, 151 P.2d 785
  2. Evans-Wallower Lead Co. v. Byrd1935 OK 1121, 51 P.2d 497
  3. Southwestern Light & Power Co. v. Pittman1935 OK 1026, 50 P.2d 298
  4. Greer County Gins v. Dunnington1933 OK 616, 27 P.2d 630

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Pioneer Gas Utils. Co. v. Howard, 1932 OK 60, 7 P.2d 435 13

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list