Rubeo v. Arthur McMullen Co.
| Decision Date | 29 April 1938 |
| Docket Number | No. 23.,23. |
| Parties | RUBEO v. ARTHUR McMULLEN CO. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
The Court of Errors and Appeals will not reverse a finding of fact by the Supreme Court in a workman's compensation case if there is competent evidence in the transcript to support it.
Appeal from Supreme Court.
Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Nancy Rubeo, claimant, for the death of her husband, opposed by the Arthur McMullen Company, employer. From a judgment of the Supreme Court, 118 N.J.L. 530, 193 A. 797, reversing a judgment of the court of common pleas disallowing compensation and affirming a judgment of the Compensation Bureau awarding compensation, the employer appeals.
Affirmed.
Edwin Joseph O'Brien and Gray & Reid, all of Newark, for appellant. Sallie H. Donarovich and Matthew M. Slepin, both of Jersey City, for respondent.
The case turns upon a question of fact left undetermined by the Supreme Court on an earlier consideration. The cause was remanded in accordance with our finding reported in 117 N.J.L. at page 574, 189 A. 662. The fact as now resolved by the Supreme Court is that the transporting of the employee to and from his place of work was one of the contractual incidents of his employment. This court will not reverse a finding of fact by the Supreme Court in a workman's compensation case if there is competent evidence in the transcript to support it. Friese v. Nagle Packing Co., 110 N.J.L. 588, 166 A. 307; Helminsky v. Ford Motor Co., 111 N.J.L. 369, 373, 168 A. 420. We think that there is evidence in the case which may be so regarded. Upon the assumption that the fact was truly found, the law was correctly applied.
The judgment is affirmed.
For affirmance: The CHANCELLOR, the CHIEF JUSTICE, Justices TRENCHARD, PARKER, CASE, DONGES, and PORTER, and Judges HETFIELD, DEAR, WELLS, WOLFSKEIL, RAFFERTY, and WALKER—13.
For reversal: None.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Micieli v. Erie R. Co.
...holding in the cases of Rubeo v. Arthur McMullen Co., 117 N.J.L. 574, 189 A. 662, conformed to 118 N.J.L. 530, 193 A. 797, affirmed 120 N.J.L. 182, 198 A. 843, and Lehigh Navigation Coal Co. v. McGonnell, 120 N.J.L. 428, 199 A. 906, affirmed 121 N.J.L. 583, 3 A.2d 581, determined that deced......
-
Jasaitis v. City of Paterson, A--107
...found in the affirmative on the issues stated and awarded compensation, 118 N.J.L. 530, 193 A. 797 (Sup.Ct.1937), affirmed 120 N.J.L. 182, 198 A. 843 (E. & A. 1938). The court said: '* * * the furnishing of this accommodation grew, with the knowledge and acquiescence, if not indeed the dire......
-
Huddock v. Grant Motor Co., 38734
... ... v. Brown, 212 Ark. 871, 208 S.W.2d 778 (1948); Rubeo v. Arthur McMullen Co., 117 N.J.Law 574, 189 A. 662, conformed to, 118 N.J.Law 530, 193 A. 797, ... ...
-
Martin v. Hasbrouck Heights Bldg. Loan & Sav. Ass'n.
...without exceptions. Cf. Rubeo v. Arthur McMullen Co., 117 N.J.L. 574, 189 A. 662, same case 118 N.J.L. 530, 193 A. 797, affirmed 120 N.J.L. 182, 198 A. 843; Micieli v. Erie R. R. Co., 130 N.J.L. 448, 33 A.2d 586, affirmed 131 N.J.L. 427, 37 A.2d 123. And the Pilkington case and the Clegg ca......