Friese v. Nagle Packing Co.

166 A. 307, 110 N.J.L. 588, 1933 N.J. LEXIS 574
CourtSupreme Court of New Jersey
DecidedMay 15, 1933
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 166 A. 307 (Friese v. Nagle Packing Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of New Jersey primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Friese v. Nagle Packing Co., 166 A. 307, 110 N.J.L. 588, 1933 N.J. LEXIS 574 (N.J. 1933).

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Bodine, J.

The competent evidence supports the judgment of the Supreme Court upon a factual finding and, therefore, this court will not reverse. Zober v. Turner, 106 N. J. L. 86. The bureau, in conducting hearing under the Workmen’s Compensation act, is not bound by the technical rules of evidence. Pamph. L. 1918, p. 433, § 9. But it is bound to ascertain the substantial rights of the parties. Scalise v. Uvalde Asphalt Paving Co., 98 Id. 696. The legislature cannot be supposed to have intended that the substantial rights of the parties should be ascertained from hearsay.testimony. Although such testimony can be received by the bureau it can form no basis for an award. The substantial rights of the parties must be settled by such evidence as has always been regarded as competent in courts of law. Since the *589 bureau is not liable to be misled by testimony which is not evidential the observance of the technical rules is of less importance than at a trial in the courts of law. The bureau cannot, however, disregard the fundamental rules of judicial proof in making awards. Its finding must be sustained by competent evidence.

The judgment is affirmed.

For affirmance — The Chiee Justice, Parker, Lloyd, Case, Bodine, Heher, Van Buskirk, Kays, Heteield, Dear, Wells, JJ. 11.

For reversal — None.

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

Related

Lindquist v. City of Jersey City Fire Department
814 A.2d 1069 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 2003)
Reinhart v. E.I. Dupont De Nemours
685 A.2d 1301 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1996)
Tibbs v. Bd. of Ed. of Tp. of Franklin
276 A.2d 165 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1971)
Mullen v. Ziegener
51 A.2d 31 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1947)
Rainess v. Grant Finishing Co., Inc.
41 A.2d 127 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1945)
Cino v. Driscoll
34 A.2d 6 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1943)
Van Bodegon v. Standard Coated Products Corp.
14 A.2d 760 (New Jersey Department of Labor Workmen's Compensation Bureau, 1940)
Manion v. Eder Erecting Co.
187 A. 40 (Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, 1936)
City of Newark v. Civil Service Commission
178 A. 201 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1935)
Helminsky v. Ford Motor Co.
168 A. 420 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1933)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
166 A. 307, 110 N.J.L. 588, 1933 N.J. LEXIS 574, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/friese-v-nagle-packing-co-nj-1933.