Smith v. Lynch
| Decision Date | 06 December 1921 |
| Docket Number | Case Number: 12128 |
| Citation | 202 P. 1018,1921 OK 422,84 Okla. 199 |
| Parties | CHESTNUT & SMITH et al. v. LYNCH et al. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
¶0 1. Master and Servant--Award of Work. man's Compensation--Review--Questions of Fact.
In a suit instituted in this court to review an award of the State Industrial Commission, the suit must be to review an error of law, and not an error of fact. The decision as to all matters of fact is final.
2. Same.
The opinion of the Industrial Commission examined, and held that the appeal herein involves a question of fact, and not an error of law.
3. Appeal and Error--Briefs--Citation of Authorities.
A plausible, but not convincing, argument in the brief, unsupported by citation of authority, is not sufficient to overcome the presumption indulged by the Supreme Court in favor of the correctness of the judgment of the trial court.
Appeal from State Industrial Commission.
From award of workman's compensation to Arnold W. Lynch, Chestnut & Smith and another appeal, making the Industrial Commission a defendant in error. Judgment of Commission affirmed.
Breck Moss, for petitioners.
S. P. Freeling, Atty. Gen., R. E. Wood, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lydick & Hood, and Irvin L. Wilson, for respondents.
¶1 This is an appeal from the award of the State Industrial Commission by Chestnut & Smith and Consolidated Underwriters, wherein the State Industrial Commission awarded Arnold W. Lynch compensation for facial disfigurement in the sum of $1,800, and the further sum of $ 11.75 per week.
¶2 It is first contended that the evidence is insufficient to support the finding of the Commission relative to the monthly pay of Arnold W. Lynch at the time he was injured. The Commission found that, prior to the time of the injury, the claimant was receiving compensation amounting to $ 185 per month. There is evidence in the record to support this finding, as complainant testified that he was receiving a salary of $ 125 per month and expenses when away from home, and that his board and room amounted to $ 2.50 per day and he was away six days in a week. This involves a question of fact, and there is evidence to support this finding. This court, in the case of Wilson Lumber Co. v. Wilson, 77 Okla. 312, 188 P. 666, stated as follows:
¶3 The next question involved is the sufficiency of the evidence to substantiate the finding of the Commission of the permanent partial disability of claimant. It is sufficient to say there is evidence in the record to support the finding of the Commission, and this being a question of fact, it cannot be reviewed. The third proposition presented is stated as follows:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Russell v. Ely & Walker Dry Goods Co.
... ... commission, and the court erred in setting it aside and ... remanding the cause. Woods v. American Coal & Ice ... Co., 25 S.W.2d 144; Smith v. Levis-Zukoski ... Mercantile Co., 14 S.W.2d 470; Hager v ... Pulitzer, 17 S.W.2d 578; Kinder v. Hannibal ... Co., 18 S.W.2d 91; Waring v. Met ... Gottlieb, 233 N.Y.S. 485; Ciarla v. Solvay Process ... Co., 184 A.D. 629; Gray v. Richards, 113 A. 9; ... Chestnut and Smith v. Lynch, 84 Okla. 199, 202 P ... 1018. (3) In adopting a statute of another state there is a ... presumption we also adopt the construction placed upon it ... ...
-
Brunstetter Motor Co. v. Brunstetter
...attention of this court has been called or of which I have any knowledge, where such awards were sustained, is Chestnut & Smith et al. v. Lynch et al., 84 Okla. 199, 202 P. 1018. Those awards were therein sustained after a finding by this court that the "plaintiffs in error cite no authorit......
-
Carignano v. Box
... ... his several contentions, and only in one instance cites a section from the statute of this state and this court, in the case of Chestnut & Smith et al. v. Lynch et al., 84 Okla. 199, 202 P. 1018, announced this rule in the following language:"On appeal to this court the judgment of the lower ... ...
-
Garner v. BLDG
...was void, and we shall therefore treat the other alleged errors as waived. Mires v. Hogan, 97 Okla. 130, 222 P. 985; Chestnut & Smith v. Lynch, 84 Okla. 199, 202 P. 1018. In support of his contention defendant cites section 3546, C. O. S. 1921, providing that certain days, including the day......