N.Y. Switch & Crossing Co. v. Mullenbach

• Decision Date: 03 May 1918
• Docket Number: No. 78.,78.
• Citation: 103 A. 803,92 N.J.Law 254
• Parties: NEW YORK SWITCH & CROSSING CO. v. MULLENBACH et al.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

103 A. 803

92 N.J.Law 254

NEW YORK SWITCH & CROSSING CO.

v. MULLENBACH et al.

No. 78.

Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey.

May 3, 1918.

Appeal from Supreme Court.

Proceedings under Workmen's Compensation Act by Rose Mullenbach and others, opposed by the New York Switch & Crossing Company, employer, to recover compensation for the death of Andrew Mullenbach, employe Judgment for petitioner was affirmed by the Supreme Court, and the employer appeals. Affirmed.

On appeal from the Supreme Court in which the following per curiam was filed:

"This is a workmen's compensation case, in which judgment was given for the petitioner in the Hudson common pleas court. Petitioner's decedent, Andrew Mullenbach, was employed by the prosecutor, as a foreman, on March 11, 1916. While engaged in lifting a heavy steel girder he strained the muscles of his back, aggravating two hernias. As a result, he had to undergo an operation. He afterwards, on June 4, 1916, died of a post operative pneumonia. The trial court found as a fact that the accident arose out of and in the course of his employment. This is the controverted question in the case. Our reading of the testimony satisfied us that the trial court's findings of fact are supported by the evidence. This is conclusive. Hulley v. Moosebrugger, 88 N. J. Law, 163, 95 Atl. 1007, L. R. A. 1916C, 1203. There is no legal merit in the other reasons presented for setting aside the judgment.

"The judgment of the court of common pleas is affirmed, with costs."

Kalisch & Kalisch, of Newark, for appellant. Doherty & Kinkead, of Jersey City, for appellees.

PER CURIAM. The judgment under review will be affirmed for the reasons set forth in the opinion of the Supreme Court.