Sweigard v. Richards
| Decision Date | 12 July 1937 |
| Docket Number | No. 274.,274. |
| Citation | 193 A. 188,118 N.J.Law 394 |
| Parties | SWEIGARD v. RICHARDS et al. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
In an appeal to the common pleas in a workmen's compensation case, it is the duty of that court under the statute to review the evidence and determine its weight, independently of the findings of fact of the bureau. An affirmance in the pleas, based merely on a finding that there is some evidence to support the judgment of the bureau, is not sufficient.
Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Walter T. Sweigard, claimant, opposed by Emerson L. Richards and others, receivers, etc., employers. On rule to show cause why writ of certiorari should not issue to review award by court of common pleas affirming an award of the Workmen's Compensation Bureau granting compensation.
Rule to show cause continued in accordance with opinion.
Argued May term, 1937, before BROGAN, C. J., and PARKER, J.
Daniel De Brier, of Atlantic City, for prosecutors. Robert N. McAllister, of Atlantic City, for petitioner.
This is a rule to show cause why a writ of certiorari should not go to review an award by the judge of the Atlantic court of common pleas affirming a similar award for petitioner in a workmen's compensation case. There were two principal defenses set up: First, that petitioner was not an employee but an independent contractor: and, secondly, that if he was an employee, the employment was merely casual and so the admitted accident, which occurred while he was at work, was not compensable under the statute. The deputy commissioner considered the first point in detail, and decided that petitioner was an employee. As to the other branch of the case, he said: "In my judgment the fact as brought out that there was no engagement for a definite length of time or for any other service than the work being performed on this particular refrigerator has no bearing on the question."
For the purposes of this rule, it is unnecessary to recapitulate the evidence in any detail. Suffice it to say that as we read it, there was a dispute both of fact and law, as to whether the petitioner or an independent contractor, engaged for the sole and specific purpose of repairing a refrigerator which had broken down without control as to work or methods by any member of the regular staff of the hotel in which the refrigerator was located; and also as to the matter of casual employment, the hiring being that of an outside...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cino v. Driscoll
...mind for the consideration of the testimony adduced.’ Cf. Charlock v. M. W. Kellogg Co., 132 A. 297, 4 N.J.Misc. 260; Sweigard v. Richards, 118 N.J.L. 394, 193 A. 188; Calicchio v. Jersey City Stock Yards Co., 125 N.J.L. 112, 116, 14 A.2d 465. But it is also true that a statute ‘often speak......
-
Calicchio v. Jersey City Stock Yards Co.
...case, is in the negative. It is well to bear in mind, as was pointed out by Mr. Justice Parker for this court in Sweigard v. Richards, 118 N.J.L. 394, 395, 193 A. 188, and cases there cited, that an appeal under the workmen's compensation act, N.J.S.A. 34:15-66, is decided by the judge of t......
-
De Monaco by Giacobe v. Renton
...260 (Sup.Ct.1926); New York Live Poultry Trucking Co. v. Schwartz, 135 A. 775, 5 N.J.Misc. 178 (Sup.Ct.1927); Sweigard v. Richards, 118 N.J.L. 394, 193 A. 188 (Sup.Ct.1937); Folsom v. Magna Manufacturing Co., 14 N.J.Super. 363, 82 A.2d 434 (App.Div.1951). The County Court should, of course,......
-
City of Paterson v. Smith
...record and testimony; it is a proceeding de novo, providing a new mind for the consideration of the testimony adduced. Sweigard v. Richards, 118 N.J.L. 394, 193 A. 188, Calicchio v. Jersey City Stock Yards Co., 125 N.J.L. 112, 14 A.2d 465. We conclude from a reading of the memorandum of the......