J. E. Haddock, Ltd. v. Pillsbury

60 F. Supp. 806, 1945 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2284
CourtDistrict Court, N.D. California
DecidedMarch 15, 1945
DocketNo. 23542-G
StatusPublished

This text of 60 F. Supp. 806 (J. E. Haddock, Ltd. v. Pillsbury) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
J. E. Haddock, Ltd. v. Pillsbury, 60 F. Supp. 806, 1945 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2284 (N.D. Cal. 1945).

Opinion

GOODMAN, District Judge.

The defendant Deputy Commissioner’s decision awarding compensation to the widow of a deceased employee rests upon his finding that the widow was, at the time of decedent’s death, living apart from him “for justifiable cause and by reason of his desertion at such time.” 33 U.S.C. A. §§ 902(16), 909(b).

Upon review, the court should not disturb the Commissioner’s finding and decision, if supported by substantial evidence. Crowell v. Benson, 285 U.S. 22, 46, 47, 52 S.Ct. 285, 76 L.Ed. 598; Voehl v. Indemnity Ins. Co., 288 U.S. 162, 166, 53 S.Ct. 380, 77 L.Ed. 676, 87 A.L.R. 245; Parker v. Motor Boat Sales, 314 U.S. 244, 246, 62 S.Ct. 221, 86 L.Ed. 184.

The finding above referred to was supported by substantial evidence, provided it was not precluded by a decree of divorce awarded the deceased employee on the ground of the widow’s cruelty, but not yet final at the time of the employee’s death.

I am of the opinion that, absent a. final decree of divorce, or a decree final by lapse of time,1 the Commissioner could explore the facts and himself determine, in the compensation proceeding, whether the widow was, at the time of decedent’s death, living apart from him “for justifiable cause or by reason of his desertion at such time.”

This he did. The evidence he heard supports his finding and it should not be disturbed on review.

The order of the Compensation Commissioner is sustained and the complaint is dismissed.

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

Related

L. E. Waterman Co. v. Modern Pen Co.
235 U.S. 88 (Supreme Court, 1914)
Crowell v. Benson
285 U.S. 22 (Supreme Court, 1932)
Voehl v. Indemnity Insurance Co. of North America
288 U.S. 162 (Supreme Court, 1933)
Parker v. Motor Boat Sales, Inc.
314 U.S. 244 (Supreme Court, 1942)
Baker v. Eilers Music Co.
166 P. 1006 (California Supreme Court, 1917)
Webb v. . Buckelew
82 N.Y. 555 (New York Court of Appeals, 1880)
Glenn v. Brush
3 Colo. 26 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1876)
Dusing v. Nelson
7 Colo. 184 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1883)
L. E. Waterman Co. v. Modern Pen Co.
193 F. 242 (S.D. New York, 1912)
L. E. Waterman Co. v. Modern Pen Co.
197 F. 534 (Second Circuit, 1912)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
60 F. Supp. 806, 1945 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2284, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/j-e-haddock-ltd-v-pillsbury-cand-1945.