Summary

Portrait of Edward Terry Sanford Edward Terry Sanford New York State Railways v. Shuler…

There is no evidence * * * that the sum fixed is so extravagant or arbitrary as to constitute an abuse of power.' Watkinson v. Hotel Pennsylvania, 195 App. Div. 624, 627, 187 N. Y. Supp. 278, 281. And the aggregate of the required payments to the two special funds was then the same as that subsequently required under the amendments of 1922; there being merely a different apportionment between the two funds.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Edward Terry Sanford Edward Terry Sanford New York State Railways v. Shuler…

He left no survivors entitled to compensation. The State Industrial Board, in an appropriate proceeding awarded the State Treasurer against the Railways, a 'self-insurer,' the sum of $100, under subdivision 7 (now 8) [2] of section 15 for the total disability fund, and the sum of $900, under subdivision 8 (now 9) , for the rehabilitation fund. The Railways did not appeal from the award under subdivision 7. On successive appeals the award under subdivision 8 was affirmed by the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals, without opinions.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature