From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

McCadden v. West End B. L. Assn

Court of Errors and Appeals
Sep 19, 1941
21 A.2d 737 (N.J. 1941)

Opinion

Submitted May 31, 1941 —

Decided September 19, 1941.

On appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, whose opinion is reported in 126 N.J.L. 1.

For the appellant, William B. McMichael ( Reynier J. Wortendyke, Jr., of counsel).

For the respondent, David Roskein ( Harry Cohn, of counsel).


The judgment of the Supreme Court is affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the opinion of Mr. Justice Perskie.

It is not contended that there is no sufficient basis in the evidence for the finding that the enucleation of the employee's eye was due to the industrial accident; and we have not considered that question.

For affirmance — THE CHANCELLOR, CASE, BODINE, DONGES, HEHER, PORTER, COLIE, DEAR, WELLS, WOLFSKEIL, RAFFERTY, HAGUE, THOMPSON, JJ. 13.

For reversal — None.


Summaries of

McCadden v. West End B. L. Assn

Court of Errors and Appeals
Sep 19, 1941
21 A.2d 737 (N.J. 1941)
Case details for

McCadden v. West End B. L. Assn

Case Details

Full title:JOSEPH McCADDEN, PETITIONER-RESPONDENT, v. WEST END BUILDING AND LOAN…

Court:Court of Errors and Appeals

Date published: Sep 19, 1941

Citations

21 A.2d 737 (N.J. 1941)
21 A.2d 737

Citing Cases

Solymosi v. Hough Fuel Company

This statutory distinction arose from the potential duplication of benefits where a visionless eye was…

Shuler v. Eastern Foundry

To substantiate respondent's contention, therefore, it must be proven that at a reasonable time prior to the…