Ambrose v. Coxe Bros. & Co.

109 A. 642, 266 Pa. 536, 1920 Pa. LEXIS 607
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided March 8, 1920·No. Appeal, No. 14·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam,

On appeal from an award by a referee of compensation to the appellee for the death of her husband, the compensation board, in a hearing de novo, found as a fact that his death had been hastened by injuries which he sustained in 1916, while in the employ of the appellant. On appeal to the court below and here the complaint of the appellant is that the evidence did not justify that finding. It is sufficient to say that the evidence is not before us, and the finding of the board under the statute is conclusive: Poluskiewicz v. Philadelphia & Reading Coal & Iron Company, 257 Pa. 305.

Appeal dismissed and award affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Ambrose v. Coxe Bros. & Co., 109 A. 642, 266 Pa. 536, 1920 Pa. LEXIS 607 (Pa. 1920).

109 A. 642 (Ambrose v. Coxe Bros. & Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Callihan v. Montgomery
115 A. 889 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1922)