Berlinger v. Medal Silk Co.
| Decision Date | 27 September 1934 |
| Docket Number | No. 96.,96. |
| Citation | 174 A. 558 |
| Parties | BERLINGER v. MEDAL SILK CO. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Appeal from Supreme Court.
Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Helen Berlinger, employee, opposed by the Medal Silk Company, employer. From a judgment of the Supreme Court (171 A. 678, 12 N. J. Misc. 301), dismissing a writ of certiorari and affirming a judgment of the Common Pleas Court which affirmed an award of the Workmen's Compensation Bureau in favor of employee, employer appeals.
Affirmed.
Joseph C. Paul, of Newark, for appellant.
Nathan Rabinowitz and Marcus & Levy, all of Paterson (Isadore Rabinowitz, of Paterson, of counsel), for respondent.
This is a workmen's compensation case. The deputy compensation commissioner, John J. Stahl, found among other things that on October 20, 1931, respondent was employed by appellant as a weaver, and had been so employed for a period of seven years prior thereto; that on the lastmentioned date she suffered personal injuries as a result of an accident which arose out of and in the course of her employment; and made an award in her favor, etc. Respondent has since died. An appeal was taken from the award of the Compensation Bureau to the common pleas court of Passaic county, and was there sustained. The judgment of the lastmentioned court was, on certiorari, removed to the Supreme Court.
Our reports are replete with decisions which clearly state and restate the law applicable in such cases. The following are a few of the many typical cases:
In Pearson v. Armstrong Cork Co., 143 A. 449, 450, 6 N. J. Misc. 976, on page 978, the Supreme Court held: "Where two independent and distinct tribunals such as these have examined the facts and heard the testimony, we do not think that a conclusion so reached should 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, and we therefore are of the opinion that such conclusion should stand undisturbed."
In Mountain Ice Co. v. Durkin, 144 A. 6, 7, 6 N. J. Misc. 1111, at page 1113 (affirmed 105 N. J. Law, 636,147 A. 451), the Supreme Court held: "What was said by this court in a recent case, Pearson v. Armstrong Cork Co., No. 207, 143 A. 449, 6 N. J. Misc. 976, October term, 1928, is pertinent; when two independent and distinct tribunals, such as these, have examined the facts and heard the testimony, we do not think that a conclusion so reached should be lightly disturbed by this court."
See, also, Berman v. Levenstein, 154 A. 110, 9 N. J. Misc. 378, 380; Phillips v. Federated Metals Corp., 170 A. 209, 12 N. J. Misc. 160.
The following points were argued before the Supreme Court: (1) The petitioner did not sustain the burden of proving...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ciocca v. Nat'l Sugar Ref. Co. of N.J.
...upon competent proofs in support of conclusions so reached. Berlinger v. Medal Silk Co., 171 A. 678, 12 N.J.Misc. 301, affirmed 113 N.J.L. 476, 174 A. 558. But it is equally true that we unhesitatingly reverse where there is no competent evidence to support a fact conclusion. Cirillo v. Uni......
-
Martin v. Hasbrouck Heights Bldg. Loan & Sav. Ass'n.
...We, who do not ‘lightly disturb’ a result reached by the stated independent tribunals, give like answer. Cf. Berlinger v. Medal Silk Co., 113 N.J.L. 476, 477, 174 A. 558. Admittedly, the ‘evidence is not in dispute.’ On November 25, 1941, about 5:30 p. m., Will D. Martin, 72 years of age, p......
-
Rotino v. J. P. Scanlon, Inc.
...Helminsky v. Ford Motor Co., 111 N.J.L. 369, 168 A. 420; Friese v. Nagle Packing Co., 110 N.J.L. 588, 166 A. 307; Berlinger v. Medal Silk Co., 113 N.J.L. 476, 174 A. 558. "The Court of Errors and Appeals will, not weigh the evidence, and where a question of fact is presented by the proofs i......
-
Brighton v. Bor. Of Rumson.
...976, 978; Mountain Ice Co. v. Durkin, 144 A. 6, 6 N.J.Misc. 1111, 1113, affirmed 105 N.J.L. 636, 147 A. 451; Berlinger v. Medal Silk Co., 113 N.J.L. 476, 174 A. 558; Reis v. Breeze Corporation, 129 N.J.L. 138, 141, et seq., 28 A.2d 304), nevertheless that principle is no bar to the right of......