Mattivi v. State Compensation Insurance Fund

127 P.2d 878, 109 Colo. 543, 1942 Colo. LEXIS 310
CourtSupreme Court of Colorado
DecidedJune 29, 1942
DocketNo. 15,159.
StatusPublished

This text of 127 P.2d 878 (Mattivi v. State Compensation Insurance Fund) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Colorado primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Mattivi v. State Compensation Insurance Fund, 127 P.2d 878, 109 Colo. 543, 1942 Colo. LEXIS 310 (Colo. 1942).

Opinion

Mr. Justice Burke

delivered the opinion of the court.

This cause is here for the second time. State Fund v. Mattivi, 106 Colo. 461, 106 P. (2d) 463. Our former opinion should be read in connection with this. The sole question there was, and here is, Was plaintiff in error (hereinafter referred to as plaintiff) the common-law wife of the deceased? An order of the county court so holding was in evidence. Exclusive thereof the commis *544 sion found the relationship did not exist, but bound by that order, as it believed itself in law to be, it found for her. We held the order admissible but not conclusive. Regardless thereof we found evidence to support an award either way and directed the cause remanded to the commission for a clear-cut finding on the fact. That procedure was followed, the same evidence introduced, and an award entered against plaintiff. That award was sustained by the district court and this writ is prosecuted to review its judgment. The assignments present the simple question of the sufficiency of the evidence.

In our former opinion we pronounced the identical evidence ample to support a holding of no common-law marriage. It is here insisted that pronouncement became the law of the case, citing 5 C.J.S., p. 1267, §1821. We need not determine the question. Instead we have elected to review that evidence and now hold it sufficient. Under the well-settled rule that if there be evidence to support an award it cannot be disturbed, the judgment is affirmed.

Mr. Chief Justice Young and Mr. Justice Knous concur.

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

Related

State Compensation Insurance Fund v. Mattivi
106 P.2d 463 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1940)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
127 P.2d 878, 109 Colo. 543, 1942 Colo. LEXIS 310, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mattivi-v-state-compensation-insurance-fund-colo-1942.