Pitchenick v. New York Folding Box Co.

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Pitchenick v. New York Folding Box Co.

30 A.2d 40, 129 N.J.L. 399, 1943 N.J. LEXIS 196

CourtSupreme Court of New Jersey

DecidedJanuary 22, 1943

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 30 A.2d 40 (Pitchenick v. New York Folding Box 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

Pitchenick v. New York Folding Box Co., 30 A.2d 40, 129 N.J.L. 399, 1943 N.J. LEXIS 196 (N.J. 1943).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The Compensation Bureau concluded that the evidence did not establish that the deceased employee’s death resulted from an accident which arose out of and in the course of his employment within the intendment of R. S. 1937, 34:15-7, et seq.; and the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment. The majority view was that, while there was evidence tending to show that decedent “was at the time on his way to call on a customer so that if he was killed accidentally,” his widow was entitled to recover, the proofs were persuasive that the death was suicidal.

Appellant contends that the evidence fails utterly to support this conclusion. We are not at liberty on error to weigh the evidence. The rule is that on certiorari findings of fact on conflicting evidence, or on uneontroverted evidence reasonably susceptible of conflicting inferences, are conclusive in this court. Ford Motor Co. v. Fernandez, 114 N. J. L. 202.

The judgment is accordingly affirmed.

For affirmance —The Chancellor,, Chief Justice, Parker, Case, Donges, Heher, Colie, Dear, Wells, Rafferty, Hague, Thompson, JJ. 12.

For reversal —None.

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

Per Curiam.

The Compensation Bureau concluded that the evidence did not establish that the deceased employee’s death resulted from an accident which arose out of and in the course of his employment within the intendment of R. S. 1937, 34:15-7, et seq.; and the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment. The majority view was that, while there was evidence tending to show that decedent “was at the time on his way to call on a customer so that if he was killed accidentally,” his widow was entitled to recover, the proofs were persuasive that the death was suicidal.

Appellant contends that the evidence fails utterly to support this conclusion. We are not at liberty on error to weigh the evidence. The rule is that on certiorari findings of fact on conflicting evidence, or on uneontroverted evidence reasonably susceptible of conflicting inferences, are conclusive in this court. Ford Motor Co. v. Fernandez, 114 N. J. L. 202.

The judgment is accordingly affirmed.

For affirmance —The Chancellor,, Chief Justice, Parker, Case, Donges, Heher, Colie, Dear, Wells, Rafferty, Hague, Thompson, JJ. 12.

For reversal —None.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

30 A.2d 40, 129 N.J.L. 399, 1943 N.J. LEXIS 196, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pitchenick-v-new-york-folding-box-co-nj-1943.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack