The silver state. [volume] (Winnemucca, Nev.) 1909-1925, 1916-01-29
TON0PAH mining
man wins APPEAL

The clerk of the Supreme Court Of
Nevada was in receipt yesterday of a
formidable instrument bearing the seal
of the Supreme Court of the United
States, says the Appeal. The instru-
ment is entitled, "Mandate in the case
of Halifax Tonopah Mining Cimpany
versus John w. Lawson" and by the
order therein contained the decision of
the Supreme Court of Nevada in the
now famous case of John w. Lawson
versus the Halifax Tonopah Mining
company is affirmed, and the judgment
entered in that case is sustained.
Lawson was an employe of the Hall
fax Tonopah Mining company at To
nopah, Nye county, Nevada, and was
injured during the course of his en-
ployment. Shortly after his injury,
Lawson signed a REIMBURSEMENT and
satisfaction, wherein, in consideration
of $76, he released and discharged the
company from any and all claims Of
damages that he might have for the
injury which he sustained.
Section 1862 of the Revised Laws of
Nevada provides: "That no contract
of employment, insurance, relief, benc-
fit or indemnity for injury or death,
entered into by or on behalf of any
employe, nor the acceptance of any in
surance, relief, benefit or indemnity by
the person entitled thereto, shall con-
stitute any bar or defense to any action
brought to recover damages for per-
sonal injuries to or death of such en-
ploye; provided, however, that upon
the trial of such action, the defendant
may set off any sum it has contributed
toward any such insurance, relief, ben
eft or indemnity toward any such in
surance, relief, benefit or indemnity
that may have been paid to the person
entitled thereto.'
1t was the contention of the appel
liant company that this statute was in
contravention of the constitution of
the United States, and the Supreme
Court of Nevada, in an opinion written
by Justice McCarran, held that this
statute was constitutional and that un-
der this statute the release entered into
by the employe did not deprive him Of
the right of action for damages.
In the opinion of our Supreme Court,
written by Justice McCarran, and af-
frmed by the Supreme Court of the
United States, the Court says: "The
power of the state to prevent the indi-
vidual from making certain kinds of
contracts has been passed upon approx
| ingly by many of the courts of last
resort, and it has been generally said
that if the contract be one which the
state in the legitimate exercise of its
police poyer has the right to prohibit,
il is not prevented from prohibiting II
by the Fourteenth amendment.
In speaking of the object and pur-
pose of the statute, the opinion of the
Nevada Supreme Court terms it to be
safeguard of legislation. The opin-
ion says:
"The legislature of the state of Ne
vada, speaking for the policy of the
people of this state, has in the past en-
acted many laws intended to better the
conditions of the laboring class, by Law
ing down rules and regulations in the
interest of humanity and to save the
lives and limbs and safeguard the
health of working men. The Employers
Liability act, of which section 1852 is
part, is but one of the great class
of legislative acts enacted for the pur
pose of extending humane protection
to the laborer while legitimately pursu
ing his vocation
The ease of Lawson versus the Hal
flax has been one of unusual interest
in this state, in view Of the nature OF
the statute, the constitutionality OF
which was under consideration.