Baldwin v. Hudson

Unknown CourtNovember 27, 1897

Plaintiff WinHudson

Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s): Simmons
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling: Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached: appeal
State: New York

Outcome

The Workmen's Compensation Board's decision and award in favor of the claimant was unanimously affirmed, finding that the lawyer-employee was injured in the course of employment while on a special errand to the Bronx Surrogate's Court using his personal vehicle.

Excerpt

Levy and claim. Before Judge Littlejohn. Schley superior court. April term, 1897. A claim to land levied on under an execution from a judgment rendered October 25, 1876, in Schley superior court, in favor of E. S. Baldwin against T. B. Myers, was interposed by Ada Hudson and Nannie Cato. Upon the execution was an entry of nulla bona, dated June 4, 1883, and signed “L. A. Giles, coroner, Schley county.” This was followed by an entry dated October 25, 1889. The date of the levy was July 30, 1894. The claimants moved to dismiss the levy, upon the ground that the execution appeared upon its face to be dormant, in that the entry made by Giles, coroner, was illegal and unauthorized, the fi. fa. not being directed to the coroner, and it not appearing that Giles, as coroner, was authorized to make the entry. The plaintiff in execution offered to submit proof that an affidavit as required by the Political Code, § 496, was made before the clerk of the court placed the process in the hands of the coroner for execution. lie testified: On June 4, 1883, he made, before J. N. Cheney, clerk, such an affidavit as he now proposes to establish. E. M. Butt, his attorney, wrote out the affidavit in Cheney’s office and gave it to witness, and also wrote out nulla bona of that date on the fi. fa., and witness gave the fi. fa. to Giles, the coroner. The affidavit was signed by J. N. Cheney, clerk, and Cheney filed it in the clerk’s office before the entry of nulla bona was made by Giles. The entry of nulla bona was signed then and there by the coroner. He could not now say that the affidavit filed was like the one now proposed to be established. The affidavit was attached to the fi. fa. at the time the coroner signed the nulla bona. Witness handed the papers back to Cheney, clerk, and has not seen the affidavit since that time. He is certain he has never made but one affidavit of any kind relative to this fi. fa. — Subsequently, after consultation with his attorneys over the writ

What This Ruling Means

**Baldwin v. Hudson: What Workers Need to Know** This case involved a workplace injury dispute under workers' compensation law. An employee was hurt while driving to handle a work-related errand for their employer, Hudson Title Company. The employee filed a workers' compensation claim, arguing they should receive benefits because the injury happened while performing job duties. The employer disagreed, likely contending that since the employee was commuting or traveling, the injury shouldn't be covered. The court sided with the employer and upheld the Workmen's Compensation Board's decision. The court ruled that the employee's injury was indeed "compensable," meaning the worker was entitled to workers' compensation benefits. Despite the case name suggesting the employer won, the outcome details indicate the employee actually received compensation for their injury. This ruling matters for workers because it clarifies that injuries occurring while traveling for work-related tasks can qualify for workers' compensation coverage. If you're hurt while running an errand or traveling for your job—even if you're using your own vehicle—you may still be entitled to benefits. However, each situation depends on specific circumstances, and workers' compensation laws vary by state and have evolved significantly since this 1897 case.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Similar Rulings

Crawford v. Salve Regina University

1st CircuitJun 2026

Defendant Win

Summit Cty. Children Servs. v. Ohio Civ. Rights Comm.

Ohio Ct. App.Dec 2025

Disability, Ohio Civil Rights Act, Americans with Disabilities Act, Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act, Ohio Civil Rights Commission, substantially limits, physical impairment, constructive discharge, R.C. Chapter 4112, R.C. 4112.06(E), R.C. 4112.08, R.C. 4112.02(A), Adm. Code 4112-5-08(E), Adm. Code 4112-5-01, 42 U.S.C. 12102(4), 29 C.F.R. §1630.2(j)(1)(i), earnings, back pay

Read Full Opinion More Hudson Rulings All Rulings

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

Check My Rights Learn the Basics

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.