Westinghouse Electric & Mfg. Co. v. Wright.
| Decision Date | 24 April 1947 |
| Docket Number | No. 25.,25. |
| Citation | 52 A.2d 537,135 N.J.L. 460 |
| Parties | WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC & MFG. CO. v. WRIGHT. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Supreme Court.
Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Richard Wright, claimant, opposed by the Westinghouse Electric & Manufacturing Company, employer, to recover for injuries arising out of and in course of employment. To review an award for the claimant, the employer brought certiorari to the Supreme Court. From a judgment of the Supreme Court, 134 N.J.L. 581, 49 A.2d 502, dismissing the writ, the employer appeals.
Judgment affirmed.
Haines & Chanalis, of Newark (Michael N. Chanalis, of Newark, of counsel), for appellant.
Edward T. Miller and Robert Scherling, both of Newark (Seymour B. Jacobs, of Newark, of counsel), for respondent.
This is an appeal in a workman's compensation case. On certiorari the Supreme Court found facts from which it determined that ‘the workman suffered an injury by reason of an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment.’ There was evidence to support such findings of fact. It is the settled procedural rule in this court that findings of fact on conflicting evidence, or on uncontroverted evidence reasonably susceptible of divergent inferences, are conclusive on appeal. Alexander v. Cunningham Roofing Co., Inc., 125 N.J.L. 277, 15 A.2d 612.
The judgment is affirmed with costs.
For affirmance: The CHANCELLOR, Justices DONGES, HEHER, COLIE, and EASTWOOD, and Judges WELLS, RAFFERTY, DILL, FREUND, McGEEHAN, and McLEAN-11.
For reversal: None.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jensen v. Wilhelms Const. Co.
...Compensation. Cf. Wright v. Westinghouse Elec. & Mfg. Co., 134 N.J.L. 581, 583, 49 A.2d 502 (Sup.Ct.1946), affirmed 135 N.J.L. 460, 52 A.2d 537 (E. & A.1947); Brighton v. Borough of Rumson, 135 N.J.L. 81, 50 A.2d 485 (Sup.Ct.1947). It is only when we are satisfied that the interests of just......
-
Ptak v. General Elec. Co.
...to that of Wright v. Westinghouse Electric & Mfg. Co., 134 N.J.L. 581, 49 A.2d 502 (Sup.Ct.1946), affirmed per curiam 135 N.J.L. 460, 52 A.2d 537 (E. & A.1947), where the court held that the testimony of the workman that he suffered a strain while moving a desk was sufficiently corroborated......
-
Gagliano v. Botany Worsted Mills
...Compensation. Cf. Wright v. Westinghouse Elec. & Mfg. Co., 134 N.J.L. 581, 583, 49 A.2d 502 (Sup.Ct.1946), affirmed 135 N.J.L. 460, 52 A.2d 537 (E. & A. 1947); Brighton v. Rumson, 135 N.J.L. 81, 50 A.2d 485 (Sup.Ct.1947). It is only when we are satisfied that the interests of justice requir......
-
Augustin v. Bank Bldg. & Equipment Corp., 99995
...cites the case of Wright v. Westinghouse Electric & Mfg. Co., 134 N.J.L. 581, 49 A.2d 502, 503 (Sup.Ct.1946), affirmed 135 N.J.L. 460, 52 A.2d 537 (E. & A.1947), in which our then Supreme Court, affirmed an award even though the petitioner had applied for sick benefits because he paid littl......