Van Ness v. Bor. Of Haledon., 8.

Citation56 A.2d 888,136 N.J.L. 623
Decision Date29 January 1948
Docket NumberNo. 8.,8.
PartiesVAN NESS v. BOROUGH OF HALEDON.
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court (New Jersey)

136 N.J.L. 623
56 A.2d 888

VAN NESS
v.
BOROUGH OF HALEDON.

No. 8.

Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey.

Jan. 29, 1948.


Appeal from Supreme Court.

Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Loretta Van Ness, claimant, to recover compensation for the death of Charles Van Ness, employee, opposed by the Borough of Haledon, employer. The Workmen's Compensation Bureau granted claimant compensation, and the employer appealed to the Court of Common Pleas. The Court of Common Pleas, 24 N.J.Misc. 29, 45 A.2d 673, affirmed the determination of the Workmen's Compensation Bureau, and the employer brought certiorari to the Supreme Court. From a judgment of the Supreme Court, 135 N.J.L. 222, 51 A.2d 244, reversing the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas, the claimant appeals.

Judgment of Supreme Court reversed, and judgment of Court of Common Pleas affirmed.

56 A.2d 889

Marcus & Levy, of Paterson (Isadore Rosenbloom, of Paterson, of counsel), for appellant.

William A. Davenport, of Newark (Robert E. Kiernan, of Newark, of counsel), for respondent.

HEHER, Justice.

An award of compensation under R.S. 34:15-7 et seq., N.J.S.A., to the dependents of appellant's decedent was reversed by the Supreme Court for what was found to be a failure of proof of the relationship of employer and employee between decedent and the respondent Borough at the time of the fatal mishap; and the question at the outset is whether there was error in matter of law in this determination, for if the finding rests on conflicting evidence, or on uncontroverted evidence reasonably susceptible of divergent inferences, it is conclusive on error. Mixon v. Kalman, 133 N.J.L. 113, 42 A.2d 309. We take the view that the Supreme Court misapprehended the character of the relationship, and that the proofs conclusively demonstrate that decedent was engaged in the master's service at the time of his death.

Decedent was a ‘police marshal’ of Haledon, designated as such under an ordinance which established a police department in the Borough ‘consisting of a Chief of Police and such policemen and marshals' as should thereafter be appointed, and provided, inter alia, that ‘The compensation of the members of the department shall be determined by the Council;’ that ‘The marshals shall be paid only for such time as they shall be engaged in actual duty assignment of the Mayor, Police Committee or Chief of Police;’ and that ‘All orders and assignments for any member of the Police

56 A.2d 890

Department from the Mayor...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT