Adam Black & Sons, Inc. v. Court of Common Pleas, Hudson County

• Decision Date: 27 May 1930
• Docket Number: No. 247.,247.
• Parties: ADAM BLACK & SONS, Inc. v. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, HUDSON COUNTY, et al.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

150 A. 672

ADAM BLACK & SONS, Inc

v. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, HUDSON COUNTY, et al.

No. 247.

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

May 27, 1930.

Certiorari by Adam Black & Sons, Incorporated, to review an award allowed under the Workmen's Compensation Act in favor of Edward A. Black, claimant, affirmed by the Court of Common Pleas of Hudson County, John J. McGovern, clerk.

Judgment affirmed.

Argued October term, 1929, before TRENCHARD, LLOYD, and CASE, JJ.

Edwards & Smith, of Jersey City (Edwin F. Smith and Raymond Dawson, both of Jersey City, on the brief), for prosecutor.

Kent & Kent, of Paterson (Samuel Kent, of Paterson, on the brief), for defendants.

PER CURIAM.

The writ of certiorari brings up for review an award allowed under the Workmen's Compensation Act and affirmed by the court of common pleas. The claimant is Edward A. Black. The prosecutor of the writ is Adam Black & Sons, Inc., a corporation, which incorporated with ten outstanding shares of stock, of which four were owned by the said Edward A. Black, four by his brother, and one by each of their respective wives. Subsequently other shares were issued, some to the claimant, some to his aforesaid brother, some to a younger brother; but in what amounts or proportions does not appear. The business is about $150,000 per year in volume. At the time of the accident Black was the secretary and treasurer of the corporation, although the books were kept by a paid bookkeeper.

The Workmen's Compensation Bureau found that at the time of the accident the claimant was employed by the corporation, was paid a wage for his services, and suffered an accident arising out of his employment. On appeal the court of common pleas of the county of Hudson confirmed those findings. It is the policy of this court, when two independent and distinct tribunals such as these have examined the facts and heard the testimony, a conclusion so reached ought not to be lightly disturbed by this court upon a mere inspection of the written word where there is ample support in the testimony for the conclusion so reached. Pearson v. Armstrong Cork Co., 143 A. 449, 6 N. J. Misc. R. 976; Mountain Ice Co. v. Durkin, 144 A. 6, 6 N. J. Misc. R. 1111.

It convincingly appears that Black was regularly employed as the general shop foreman of the prosecutor in its business of building and repairing automobile bodies, and that from 7:30 a. m. to 5 p. m. daily he regularly worked in overalls in the shop, doing the same work as the remaining twenty-five or twenty-eight mechanics, and that he drew a wage of $60 per week; also, that at the time of the accident he was repairing the tailboard of a truck, cutting a bolt with a hammer and chisel, in the course of which the bolt broke off and hit him in the eye, causing the permanent loss of the entire vision of that eye.

As to most of the facts there is no dispute. The point of controversy is as to Black's status at the time of the injury; that is, whether or not he was an...