TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Dias v. New Jersey Manufacturers Casualty Insurance

JOSEPH L. DIAS, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT v. NEW JERSEY MANUFACTURERS CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY

Dias v. N.J. Mfrs. Cas. Ins., 132 A. 101 (N.J. 1926)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of New Jersey · State Highest Courts
Decided
January 28, 1926
Judges
Cubiam
Citations
132 A. 1014 N.J. Misc. 1021926 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 349

Opinion of the Court — Cubiam

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Pee Cubiam.

This is an appeal from a judgment of $214 rendered in the East Orange District Court by the judge without a jury. There is no contest as to the amount of the judgment. The suit was to recover for the services rendered by a licensed physician—an eye specialist. The testimony shows that the defendant, the New Jersey Manufacturers Casualty Insurance Company, requested the plaintiff to treat a man by the name of Fred Lauer. The defendant sent a note up with the man stating that the man required treatment and asked him to treat him.

The testimony furth.er shows that Fred Lauer was an employe of Kraeuter & Company, and that Kraeuter & Company was insured by the defendant company.

The only point involved in the case is whether the plaintiff is bound by the Workmen’s Compensation act (Pamph. *103 L. 1922, r. 500, § 11, subdiv. 14), and the case of Moore v. Derees, 97 N. J. L. 378. But in that case (at p. 382) Mr. Justice Swayze, speaking for this court, said: “The parties are hound by all the terms of the statute, and only parties to the statutory contract are bound by its terms or entitled to its benefits. An examination of the statutes demonstrates that only the employer and the employe are parties to the statutory contract. The act of 1911 implies a contract only as between employer and employe, and makes provision quite inapplicable to third parties.” That case does not aid the defendant, it is an authority for affirming the judgment.

The judgment of the East Orange District Court is affirmed, with costs.

How later courts describe this case

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

1926: 11932: 11935: 21937: 11951: 119262026peak 1935 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Danek v. Hommer82 A.2d 659 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1951)
  2. Weakley County Hospital v. Kentucky-Tennessee Light & Power Co.107 S.W.2d 226 (Tenn. 1937)
  3. Tyrrell v. Standard Underground Cable Co.160 A. 763 (1932)
  4. Liest v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.48 P.2d 772 (Mont. 1935)
  5. Rosecrans v. Robert Reiner, Inc.4 N.J. Misc. 769 (1926)
  6. Sullivan v. Allwood Lumber Co.177 A. 687 (1935)

Most recent

  1. Danek v. Hommer82 A.2d 659 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1951)
  2. Weakley County Hospital v. Kentucky-Tennessee Light & Power Co.107 S.W.2d 226 (Tenn. 1937)
  3. Liest v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.48 P.2d 772 (Mont. 1935)
  4. Sullivan v. Allwood Lumber Co.177 A. 687 (1935)
  5. Tyrrell v. Standard Underground Cable Co.160 A. 763 (1932)
  6. Rosecrans v. Robert Reiner, Inc.4 N.J. Misc. 769 (1926)

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 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

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