Meader Atlas Co. v. Buehl

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Meader Atlas Co. v. Buehl

134 A. 923, 4 N.J. Misc. 833, 1926 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 106

DecidedOctober 7, 1926

StatusPublished

This text of 134 A. 923 (Meader Atlas Co. v. Buehl) 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

Meader Atlas Co. v. Buehl, 134 A. 923, 4 N.J. Misc. 833, 1926 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 106 (N.J. 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The certiorari was issued in this case to review a judgment of the Hudson County Court of Common Pleas, affirming an award made by the workmen’s compensation bureau in favor of the defendant Elizabeth Buehl. The accident occurred on December 17th, 1924. The prosecutor’s point in the case is that the decedent, Frederick Buehl, was not injured in an accident arising in and out of the course of his employment. The testimony taken'before Charles E. Corbin, the deupty commissioner in the workmen’s compensation bureau, is quite voluminous. Our reading of the testimony satisfies us that the conclusion reached by him was correct, and that it was not error for the Hudson County Court of Common Pleas to affirm the judgment. The judgment of that court is affirmed, and the writ of certiorari is dismissed, with costs.

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

Per Curiam.

The certiorari was issued in this case to review a judgment of the Hudson County Court of Common Pleas, affirming an award made by the workmen’s compensation bureau in favor of the defendant Elizabeth Buehl. The accident occurred on December 17th, 1924. The prosecutor’s point in the case is that the decedent, Frederick Buehl, was not injured in an accident arising in and out of the course of his employment. The testimony taken'before Charles E. Corbin, the deupty commissioner in the workmen’s compensation bureau, is quite voluminous. Our reading of the testimony satisfies us that the conclusion reached by him was correct, and that it was not error for the Hudson County Court of Common Pleas to affirm the judgment. The judgment of that court is affirmed, and the writ of certiorari is dismissed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

134 A. 923, 4 N.J. Misc. 833, 1926 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 106, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/meader-atlas-co-v-buehl-nj-1926.