From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Rendino v. Continental Can Company

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Mar 11, 1919
123 N.E. 886 (N.Y. 1919)

Opinion

Argued February 25, 1919

Decided March 11, 1919

Bertrand E. Pettigrew and Walter L. Glenney for appellants.

Charles D. Newton, Attorney-General ( E.C. Aiken of counsel), for respondent.


Order of Appellate Division and determination of industrial commission reversed and claim dismissed, with costs against the industrial commission in this court and in the Appellate Division, on ground there is no evidence to sustain the finding that the claimant's injury arose out of the course of his employment, within the authority of Di Salvio v. Menihan Co. ( 225 N.Y. 123).

Concur: HISCOCK, Ch. J., CHASE, COLLIN, CUDDEBACK, HOGAN, McLAUGHLIN and CRANE, JJ.


Summaries of

Matter of Rendino v. Continental Can Company

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Mar 11, 1919
123 N.E. 886 (N.Y. 1919)
Case details for

Matter of Rendino v. Continental Can Company

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of the Claim of ANTHONY RENDINO, Respondent, v . CONTINENTAL…

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Mar 11, 1919

Citations

123 N.E. 886 (N.Y. 1919)
123 N.E. 886

Citing Cases

Yodakis v. Smith Sons Carpet Co.

The following are illustrations of injuries received outside of the scope of the employment: An injury…

Smith v. Seaman Schuske Metal Works Co.

Cassidy v. Eternit, 32 S.W.2d 75; Smith v. Levis-Zukoski Mercantile Co., 14 S.W.2d 470; Bise v. Tarlton, 35…