Court Opinion

ID: 5226175
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-01-06 16:45:24.103787+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:27:35.552434
License: Public Domain

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, •