Rubeo v. Arthur McMullen Co.
This text of 198 A. 843 (Rubeo v. Arthur McMullen 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.
Opinion
The opinion of the court was delivered by
The case turns upon a question of fact left undetermined by the Supreme Court on an earlier consideration. The cause was remanded in accordance with our finding reported in 117 N. J. L. (at p. 574). The fact as now resolved by the Supreme Court is that the transporting of the employe to and from his place of work was one of the contractual incidents of his employment. This court will not reverse a finding of fact by the Supreme Court in a workmen’s compensation case if there is competent evidence *183 in the transcript to support it. Friese v. Nagle Packing Co., 110 N. J. L. 588; Helminsky v. Ford Motor Co., 111 Id. 369, 373. We think that there is evidence in the case which may be so regarded. Upon the assumption that the fact was truly found the law was correctly applied.
The judgment is affirmed.
For affirmance — The Chancellor, Chief Justice, Trenchard, Parker, Case, Donges, Porter, Hetfield, Dear, Wells, WolfsKeil, Rafferty, Walker, JJ. 13.
For reversal — None.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
198 A. 843, 120 N.J.L. 182, 1938 N.J. LEXIS 341, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rubeo-v-arthur-mcmullen-co-nj-1938.