sation on account of his injury from a fund provided by that act, such employee is not thereby estopped to recover in an action at law against third parties whose negligence caused the injury from which he seeks redress. Judgment of the Circuit Court, Roane County, in favor of the plaintiff here affirmed by the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia. Merrill vs. Marietta Torpedo Co., 92 Southeastern, 112. (February 27, 1917, Rehearing denied April 10, 1917.) Necessity of Notice to Employees that Employer Has Made Election to Pay Into the Fund. Under workmen's compensation act (Acts 1913, Chap. 10) an employer must not only have paid the premiums provided thereby, but the injured employee must have had actual notice that his employer had elected to pay into the workmen's compensation fund the premiums provided by said act; but typewritten or printed notices thereof, when duly posted in conspicious places about his place or places of business, as required by said act, will constitute sufficient notice to all his employees that he has made such election. Judgment for plaintiff in Circuit Court, Cabell County, here affirmed in Supreme Court of Appeals, West Virginia. Daniels vs. Charles Boldt Co., 88 Southeastern, 613. (April 4, 1916.) Notice of Insured-Compliance with Statute—Action for Negligence— Defenses Abolished. In a case where an action is brought based on the employer's common law liability for negligence, and the complaint alleges that the employer was a subscriber under the state workmen's compensation act but that he had not complied with the law by posting notices in conspicuous places as therein required, and that the plaintiff was without notice personally or otherwise of the election of the defendant to come under the benefits of the act, such complaint is not demurrable, as it sufficiently alleges the non-compliance with the act to give jurisdiction to the courts under the common law. In such a case, where the statute has not been complied with and a suit is brought against the employer under the common law, it is necessary to show negligence on the part of the employer or his agents, the effect of the act being merely to deny to him the benefit of the common law defenses of contributory negligence, negligence of fellow servants, and assumption of risk, which last merely forbids the application of a principle of waiver based on the servant's continuance in service with knowledge of an act of negligence rendering his service dangerous. Judgment of the Circuit Court of Morgan County for the defendant sustaining the demurrer to the petition at common law here reversed by the Supreme Court of Appeals, West Virginia. Louis vs. Smith-McCormick Construction Co., 92 Southeastern, 249. (April 3, 1917.) Idle Employee Entitled to Maintain Action at Common Law Notwithstanding Employer Has Accepted the Workmen's Compensation Act. Where an employee of a coal mining company on a day when he is not working, because he got up late and did not get his breakfast in time to get to the mine opening by 7 o'clock, is injured while he is walking past a tipple near the right of way of a railroad track by being struck by a large piece of slate and slag which is thrown from the top of a car which is being loaded, hitting him in the head and fracturing his skull, he is entitled to maintain an action at common law, notwithstanding the fact that the employer has accepted the workmen's compensation act and is an employer within the meaning thereof, the term employee as used in the act meaning one who is injured in the course of and as the result of his employment and one who under the common law principles of master and servant could have maintained an action against his employer. Judgment of the Circuit Court, McDowell County in favor of plaintiff here affirmed by the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia. Cox vs. United States Coal & Coke Co., 92 Southeastern, 559. (May 23, 1917.) Cumulated Losses, Wages and Premium Income by Classes. 65 INDEX OF DECISIONS. *Supreme Court of Appeals of West Va. Decisions. 1. Action for Negligence. *Louis vs. Smith McCormick Cons. Co...... 2. Appendicitis. Frank Tasone, Claim 408-42. Page. 234 232 4. 3. Application in due form, etc. *Mercer, Admr. on behalf of dependents of Bernard Zubritsky vs. State Compensation Commissioner, Claim 327-6......... *Culurden vs. State Compensation Commissioner, Claim 559-12 Assault Assistant Paymaster. 118 134 *Locale vs. Public Service Commission, Claim 272-54...... 7. Dependency. 220 *Gaetano Poccardi, Royal Consul of Italy, on behalf of depend- 109 231 232 Ersle McClure, Claim 429-22. 8. Dependent Father. *Gaetano Poccardi, Royal Consul of Italy, in behalf of Do- 9. Going to Work. 221 *C. De Constantine, Acting Royal Consul of Italy, on behalf of 79 10. Idle Employee entitled to maintain action. 11. In course of and resulting from employment. 235 *Gaetano Poccardi, Royal Consul of Italy, on behalf of de pendents of Catando Greeco vs. Public Service Commission, |