Dreyfus v. Lutz Co., Inc.
| Decision Date | 21 June 1928 |
| Docket Number | No. 205.,205. |
| Citation | 142 A. 433 |
| Parties | DREYFUS v. LUTZ CO., Inc. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Proceeding under Workmen's Compensation Act by Emanuel Dreyfus, complainant, opposed by the Lutz Company, Inc., employer. From a dismissal of the claimant's petition by the Workmen's Compensation Bureau, he appealed to the court of common pleas, and. to review its judgment making an award of compensation, the employer brings certiorari. Affirmed.
Argued October term, 1927. before TRENCHARD. KALISCH, and KATZENBACH, JJ.
Kellogg & Chance, of Jersey City, for prosecutor.
Littauer & Herzfeld, of Union City (Carl Weitz, of Union City, of counsel), for defendant.
On an appeal to the court of common pleas from the Workmen's Compensation Bureau, which had dismissed the petitioner's petition for compensation filed by him with the bureau, on the ground that the accident complained of and met with by him while in the employ of the defendant prosecutor did not arise out of the employment, the common pleas court found that the injury complained of by the petitioner was caused by an incident arising out of and in the course of his employment, and thereupon made an award for compensation. It is this judicial action of the court of common pleas which is brought before us for review by writ of certiorari.
Four reasons are presented in the printed case why the judgment of the court of common pleas should be reversed.
In the brief of counsel of prosecutor, all the reasons are abandoned, with the exception of the first reason, which is as follows:
"Because the said order (or determination) does not state in detail the scope of the employment of the petitioner, Emanuel Dreyfus, and does not state in detail the nature of the accident, but merely states the judge's conclusion that the injury was by an accident arising out of, and in the course of the employment of said Emanuel Dreyfus, so that said judgment is not supported by specific findings of fact which may be submitted to and considered by a court of review."
Counsel of prosecutor in their brief say:
"The principal question involved is as to whether the 'determination' or order of the common pleas judge, giving judgment in accordance with the law laid down by the Court of Errors and Appeals as to what specific findings of fact are required."
Other questions are raised by the recent trial, but plaintiff in certiorari rests upon one point.
There is no merit in the contention of counsel for prosecutor that the "determination" of the judge of the court of common pleas must be supported by the specific findings of such facts as may be submitted to and considered by the court of review, as sustaining such determination.
Prosecutor relies upon Dunnewald v. Steers, Inc., 89 N. J. Law, 601, 99 A. 345, decided at the June term, 1916, of the Court of Errors and Appeals, which court held that, to warrant a recovery under section 2 of the Workmen's Compensation Act (P. L. 1911, p. 134, as amended by P. L. 1913, p. 302) from an employer for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Calicchio v. Jersey City Stock Yards Co.
...the case at bar is, as we have already seen, the "judicial action of the court of common pleas." See second paragraph in Dreyfus v. Lutz Co., 142 A. 433, 6 N.J.Misc. 608, affirmed 106 N.J.L. 566, 146 A. 913. While the record of the Bureau, pursuant to the writ, is properly made a part of th......
-
Folsom v. Magna Mfg. Co., A--227
...that the determinations of the former Court of Common Pleas in workmen's compensation cases need not be specific. Dreyfus v. Lutz Co., 142 A. 433, 6 N.J.Misc. 608 (Sup.Ct.1928), affirmed 106 N.J.L. 566, 146 A. 913 (E. & A.1929); Fontaine v. United Engineers and Constructors, Inc., 170 A. 85......
-
Streng's Piece Dye Works, Inc. v. Galasso
...findings of fact. See Patton v. American Oil Co., 181 A. 651, 13 N.J.Misc. 825, affirmed 116 N.J.Law, 382, 185 A. 35; Dreyfus v. Lutz Co., 142 A. 433, 6 N.J. Misc. 608, affirmed 106 N.J.Law, 566, 146 A. 913. The referee's conclusions seem to have been predicated upon the "opinion" of the na......
-
Hammack v. West Plains Lumber Co.
...p. 512, sec. 44; State ex rel. Brewen-Clark Syrup Co. v. Mo. Workmen's Compensation Commission, 8 S.W.2d 897, (Mo. Sup.); Dreyfus v. Lutz Co. (N.J.), 142 A. 433; Bell & Zoller Mining Co. v. Industrial Commission et al. (Ill.), 153 N.E. 580; Byrant v. Central Foundry Co. (Ala.), 166 So. 345;......