Kovalchuck v. Simpson & Brown, 68.
Decision Date | 22 January 1937 |
Docket Number | No. 68.,68. |
Citation | 189 A. 89 |
Parties | KOVALCHUCK et al. v. SIMPSON & BROWN. |
Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Appeal from Supreme Court.
Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Elena Kovalchuck and others for the death of an employee, opposed by Simpson & Brown, employer. From a judgment of the Supreme Court affirming a judgment in favor of the employer, the claimants appeal.
Affirmed.
David Roskein, of Newark (John A. Laird, of Newark, of counsel), for appellants.
William P. Braun, of Newark, for respondent.
This is a proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act (Comp.St.Supps. § **236—1 et seq.). The question at issue is whether the death of the employee was the result of an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. The bureau, the court of common pleas, and the Supreme Court resolved this question in favor of the employer. We find it unnecessary to review the evidence. Suffice it to say that where, as here, the testimony is susceptible of conflicting inferences, the findings of fact by the Supreme Court are conclusive on appeal. Judgment affirmed.
For affirmance: The CHANCELLOR, the CHIEF JUSTICE, Justices TRENCHARD, CASE, BODINE, HEHER, and PERSKIE, and Judges HETFIELD, DEAR, WELLS, WOLFSKEIL, RAFFERTY, and COLE—13.
For reversal: None.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Mixon v. Kalman.
...divergent inferences, are not reviewable on error. Lebits v. General Cable Corporation, 112 N.J.L. 381, 170 A. 612; Kovalchuck v. Simpson & Brown, 117 N.J.L. 400, 189 A. 89. Where the witnesses of proved experiential capacity differ as to scientific principles, and the deductions to be draw......
- Franklin Trust Co. v. Goerke, 30.