General
HOCKLEY et al. v. WILSON
70 F.2d 108·United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·1934
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
HOCKLEY et al. v. WILSON.
No. 3586.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
April 3, 1934.
Wilson K. Barnes and G. Ridgely Sap-pington, both of Baltimore, Md., for appellants.
Rowland K. Adams, of Baltimore, Md. (O. Bowie Duckett, Jr., of Baltimore, Md., on the brief), for appellee.
Before PARKER and SOPER, Circuit Judges, and BAKER, District Judge.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
PER CURIAM.
For the reasons given in the opinion of Judge Chesnut in the District Court, Pyrites Co., Inc., v. Davison Chemical Co., 4 F. Supp. 294, it is held that compensation awards in Maryland under the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (33 US CA 901 et seq.) are entitled to preference against the employer without limit of amount, and the decree of the District Court is affirmed.