Case ID: ad_152/html/0954-08.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

De Ross Dailey, Respondent, v. Daniel H. Stoll, Appellant.
   Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. All concurred, except McLennan, P. J., and Foote, J., who dissented upon the grounds: First, that service Of notice under the Employers’ Liability Act was not' waived,- and, second, that if the bolt was improperly suspended, it Was a detail of the work for which defendant was not liable. 
      
       See Labor Law (Consol. Laws, chap. 31; Laws of 1909, chap. 36), § 201, as amd, by Laws of 1910,' chap. 352.— [Rkp, •