ant of defendant and defendant's obligation as master, it is nevertheless one in tort, governed by the law of the place of injury, without regard to the law of the place where the contract of employment was made, although the employé was ignorant of the law of the place of injury.66 In order that a contract of employ

to have known that it, and not the place of injury, would govern the recovery? Such a construction of the act would lift insuperable burdens from industry and commerce and workmen, and give to each his course and the ascertained fruits of the contract of his will. Whether the contract shall include injuries in a jurisdiction other than where the contract was made is determined by the expressions or implications of each act."

In Cohen v. Union News Co., 1 Conn. Comp. Dec. 62, it was held that the Connecticut Act applies to all employment conducted within the state, even though the contract of employment was made in New York. Jurisdiction lies where the injury occurs. In Welton v. Waterbury Rolling Mill, 1 Conn. Comp. Dec. 78, it was held that where a contract of employment was made in Connecticut between a resident of that state and a company incorporated and doing business in the state, both of whom had accepted the Compensation Act, an injury received by the employé in Canada while traveling in the course of his duties is compensable under the Connecticut Act.

The Rhode Island Act applies to an injury received outside the state, where the contract of employment was made within the state and the employment was begun therein; the employé being sent into another state later to complete the work. Grinnell v. Wilkinson (R. I.) 98 Atl. 103.

In Schweitzer v. Hamburg-American Line, 78 Misc. Rep. 448, 138 N. Y. Supp. 944, the German Act, when subscribed to by both parties, was held to preclude the recovery of damages in New York for injuries to an employé on a vessel leaving the New York City quarantine dock; the court saying: "A foreign law to which both employer and employés, engaged in interstate and foreign commerce and transportation, have subscribed, and upon the basis of which the contract of employment was made and entered into, where the cars or ships of the employer enter our state, and in or upon which, while within our borders, an accident occurs to the employé through his employer's negligence, particularly where the contract of employment provides for a fixed compensation in case of specified injury to take the place of a right of action at law, and which is lawful both in the place where made and that in which the cause of action arose, should obtain recognition and enforcement here. To hold otherwise works, not for benefit, but rather for injury, to our interstate and foreign commerce."

** Johnson v. Nelson, 128 Minn. 158, 150 N. W. 620. An employé cannot plead ignorance of the Compensation Act of the state wherein his employment

ment, and consequentially the Compensation Act incorporated into it by construction, may be governed by the laws of the state where the contract was made, it is frequently of importance that the employer shall have been doing business in that state. While the place of residence of the contracting parties may likewise become

67

was performed and under which alone his right to redress for injury must be asserted. Id.

67 Where a coal company of West Virginia, with principal offices and tipple and main entrance and the principal part of its mine located in that state, has qualified under the provisions of section 9 of the Workmen's Compensation Act (Laws 1913, c. 10; Code 1913, c. 15p, § 9 [sec. 665]), as amended by Acts 1915, c. 9, by paying the premiums of liability and by giving notice to miners employed in its mine, etc., the widow of a miner residing in the state and so employed therein, unless employed wholly without the state, and whose injuries resulting in his death were sustained in the course of and resulting from his employment, while temporarily at work in that part of the mine located in an adjoining state, is entitled to participate in the workmen's compensation fund created by such Act, notwithstanding the language of section 25 thereof, authorizing disbursements of such fund to employés who "shall have received injuries in this state." Gooding v. Ott (W. Va.) 87 S. E. 863.

Where an employé of an employer doing business in the state was injured outside the state, he was within the protection of the Act. (Wk. Comp. Act, § 3, subd. 4) Spratt v. Sweeney & Gray Co., 168 App. Div. 403, 153 N. Y. Supp. 505. In this case the court said: "The employer is carrying on his business in the state, and the premiums required to be paid by him are based on the assumption that each of the employés who are engaged in and about his business are insured all the time they are acting within the course of their employment. The fact that an employé may from time to time be outside of the state in the course of his employment does not diminish the amount of premium to be paid. The employer has paid for the insurance of his employé for all the time he is engaged in his work, and is entitled to the benefit of that insurance. The fact, therefore, that the employer's contribution to the fund is based on the pay roll and the number of men employed, without regard to the fact that from time to time some of them work outside of the state, emphasizes the fact that it is immaterial whether the injury took place within or without the state, so long as it occurred in the course of his employment." Where the injured workman resides in California, and the employer corporation is chartered in California and doing business in the state, and the workman is injured on a ship belonging to the employer while the ship is lying at its dock at a port in Oregon, the workman is entitled to compensation. Lentz v. Estabrook Co., 2 Cal. I. A. C. Dec. 205.

material under some Act,68 the New Jersey Act has been held applicable to contracts made by resident employers with nonresident employés," and under the Washington Act it has been held immaterial that the employer resided outside the state." The California Act has been held inapplicable to nonresident employés injured outside the state, though the contract of hire was entered into in the state." 71 Where the place of contracting and place of

es Where the contract is made within the state, and both contracting parties reside within the state, the commission has jurisdiction, though the injury occurred outside the state; the Act being intended to protect citizens of the state, and the rights of the parties being governed by the law of the place where the contract was made. Anderson v. North Alaska Salmon Co., 2 Cal. I. A. C. Dec. 241. The Commission has jurisdiction over accidents occurring outside the state, where both the employer and employé reside in the state and the employment contract is made in the state. Sandberg v. Kruse, 1 Cal. I. A. C. Dec. 441; Gallagher v. Western Steam Navigation Co., 1 Cal. I. A. C. Dec. 525. The Iowa Act is broad enough to include accidents happening beyond the borders of the state, and an employé, injured outside the state while working for an employer living in the state under a contract of employment made in Iowa, can recover compensation under the Iowa Act. (Code Supp. 1913, title 12, c. 8A) Op. Sp. Counsel to Iowa Indus. Com. (1915) p. 22.

Resident employer. The corporation owning the ship on which the workman was injured was chartered under the laws of Maine and had a technical place of business in Maine, in which state the ship was registered, but the ship had been built in California, and prior to the accident had never been on the Atlantic coast. Seventy-five per cent. of the business of the ship was done through San Francisco, and the remainder from other Pacific coast points. The ship was regularly engaged in coast line trade, with headquarters at San Francisco and 51 per cent. of the stockholders resided in California. The majority of the board of directors and all but one of the corporate officers also resided in California. The Commission held that the employer was a resident of the state of California for the purpose of determining liability under the Compensation Act. Gallagher v. Western Steam Navigation Co., supra.

69 Davidheiser v. Hay Foundry & Iron Works, 87 N. J. Law, 688, 94 Atl. 309, affirming 94 Atl. 1103, and following American Radiator Co. v. Rogge, 87 N. J. Law, 314, 93 Atl. 1083, affirming 86 N. J. Law, 436, 92 Atl. 85.

70 (Wk. Comp. Act Wash. § 3) Rulings Wash. Indus. Ins. Com. 1915, p. 5. 71 Where a traveling salesman residing in the state made a contract of employment in the state with an employer residing in the state, and thereafter moved to Utah and was there injured in the course of his employment, the

injury are in the same state, the law of that state governs," though the employé lives and ordinarily works outside that state." The Wisconsin Act covers all accidents happening within the boundaries of the state, whether on land or on boat."

74

The fact that the employer is also liable for compensation under the law of the foreign state where the accident occurred does not prevent the California Act from also applying where both the employer and employé reside in California and the employment contract was made in that state, it not being unusual for the law of two different states to govern the same transaction." In answer to the contention that to give an Act an extraterritorial operation might permit a double recovery, the New Jersey court said:

California Act did not apply. In a case so holding (Commissioner French dissenting) it was said: "While the Commission has held informally that it has jurisdiction over injuries taking place outside the exterior boundaries of the state in those cases where the contract of hire was entered into within the state, it does not deem it wise or prudent or fairly within the intent of the Act to seek to extend the jurisdiction of the Commission to take cognizance of injuries happening outside of the state to persons not residing within the state, even though the contract of hire was entered into within the state with an employer residing within the state. This Commission seeks jurisdiction only over citizens of the state." Croad v. Paraffine Paint Co., 1 Cal. I. A. C. Dec. 179.

72 Where an employé, suing in New York, was hired and was working in New Jersey at the time of his injury, his right to recover was governed by the New Jersey Act. Waselewski v. Warner Sugar Refining Co., 87 Misc. Rep. 156, 149 N. Y. Supp. 1035. The New Jersey Act controls where the contract of employment was made in New Jersey and the injury occurred in New Jersey. Pensabene v. F. & J. Auditore Co., 78 Misc. Rep. 538, 138 N. Y. Supp. 947.

73 Traveling salesmen, ordinarily working in other states and living outside of Minnesota, though in the employ of a Minnesota company, come under the Minnesota Workmen's Compensation Act whenever they come within the territory of Minnesota, and, if injured in an accident arising in the course of their occupation, they are covered by the Minnesota Act. Op. Atty. Gen. on Minn. Wk. Comp. Act, Bul. 9, p. 17.

74 Lewandowski v. Crosby Transportation Co., Rep. Wis. Indus. Com. 191415, p. 9.

75 Sandberg v. Kruse, 1 Cal. I. A. C. Dec. 441.

"Recovery of compensation in two states is no more illegal, and is not necessarily more unjust, than recovery upon two policies of accident or life insurance." 7 If both the employer, the industry being conducted outside the state, and the injured employé, are nonresidents, but the accident occurs in California, the Commission has stated that on grounds of comity it will refer the case to the domestic forum of the parties and decline to try the proceedings, unless the convenience of both litigants otherwise requires.77

On the theory that the right to compensation, though contractual, rests on the statute rather than on the contract of employment, the New Jersey Act has been held by the New Jersey courts to apply where the employment contract was made in another state and required services to be performed in New Jersey where the injury was received, the court saying: "The Workmen's Compensation Act indicates a public policy of the state, which will be enforced even as against a contract made in another state." 79

78

In a New York case it was held that, where an employer having an office in New York was insured under the Workmen's Compensation Act as to employés working in that state, the payroll on work done outside the state being used as a basis for such insurance,

76 Rounsaville v. Central R. Co., 87 N. J. Law, 371, 94 Atl. 392. 11 Sandberg v. Kruse, 1 Cal. I. A. C. Dec. 441.

78 Where a servant employed in New York died in New Jersey of injuries received there, compensation was properly awarded under the New Jersey Act; the right to compensation resting on the statute rather than on the contract of employment. The liability is indeed contractual in nature by force of the very terms of the statute, but it is not the result of an express agreement between the parties; it is an agreement, implied by the law, of a class commonly known as "quasi contracts." American Radiator Co. v. Rogge, 86 N. J. Law, 436, 92 Atl. 85.

79 American Radiator Co. v. Rogge, 86 N. J. Law, 436, 92 Atl. 85, 94 Atl. 85, affirmed in 87 N. J. Law, 314, 93 Atl. 1083; Davidheiser v. Hay Foundry & Iron Works, 87 N. J. Law, 688, 94 Atl. 309.

The New Jersey Act permits recovery, though the contract of employment was made in another state. West Jersey Trust Co. v. Philadelphia & R. Ry. Co., 88 N. J. Law, 102, 95 Atl. 753.