Mayhugh v. Somerset Telephone Co
Cases that cite this one
21 later published cases cite this decision.
- Hartford Ins. Grp. Ex Rel. Chen v. Kamara (Pa. 2018)
- Hartford Ins. Grp. ex rel. Chunli Chen v. Kamara (Pa. 2018)
- Hartford Ins. Grp. v. Kamara, K., Aplts. (Pa. 2018)
- Hartford Ins. Grp. v. Kamara, K., Aplts. (Pa. 2018)
- Liberty Mutual Insurance v. Domtar Paper Co. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2013)
- Stalling v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1999)
- Miles v. Van Meter (Pa. Super. Ct. 1993)
- Abraham v. Shapp (Pa. 1979)
- London Lancashire Indemnity Co. of America v. Reid (District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania 1957)
- Philadelphia v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Co. (Pa. 1939)
- Machado v. American Railroad (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico 1936)
- Antonio Machado v. American Railroad Co. of Porto Rico (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico 1936)
- Crider v. Hock (Franklin County Court of Common Pleas 1950)
- Cooper v. Gettier (Fulton County Court of Common Pleas 1936)
- Wintersteen v. National Cooperage & Woodenware Co. (Ill. 1935)
- Moltz, to Use v. Sherwood Bros., Inc. (Pa. Super. Ct. 1934)
- Filippini v. Richards-Kelly Co. (Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas 1932)
- Neal to Use v. B.R. P. Rwy. Co. (Pa. Super. Ct. 1931)
- Scalise v. F. M. Venzie Co., Inc. (Pa. 1930)
- Sullivan v. J. B. Fluke & Co. (Blair County Court of Common Pleas 1930)
- Smith Ex Rel. McDonnell v. Yellow Cab Co. (Pa. Super. Ct. 1925)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
Benjamin H. Mayhugh, an employee of the Bockwood Electric Light Company, was injured while in its employ, through the negligence of the Somerset Telephone Company, and recovered a judgment against it for $4,812, which we have this day affirmed in appeal No. 85, October Term, 1919. (See next case.) The State Workmen’s Insurance Fund paid the injured employee $1,-735.17 and the court below, on its petition, ordered that this amount of the judgment be marked to its use. From this order the Somerset Telephone Company has appealed. As we have affirmed the judgment against it, it cannot be prejudiced by payment to the State Workmen’s Insurance Fund, in discharge pro tanto of its liability to Mayhugh, and its appeal might well be dismissed for this reason alone, but, as the question of the right of the fund to be subrogated to the extent that it has paid for the injuries sustained by him has been raised, we pass upon it.
Order affirmed at appellant’s costs.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.