Case ID: miss_246/html/0434-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Gillespie, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Duck v. Liberty Mills, Inc., et al.
    No. 42589
    February 18, 1963
    149 So. 2d 849
    
      Calvin B. Wells, Natchez, for appellant.
    
      
      Daniel, Coker & Horton, Jackson, for appellees.
   Gillespie, J.

(Hn 1) The attorney-referee, the full commission, and the circuit court all denied compensation to appellant. The question was one of fact whether appellant sustained her injuries on the- job o.r elsewhere. The testimony was in conflict and there was substantial evidence to support the commission’s finding against claimant. The substantial evidence rule has been stated and applied so many times, as evidenced by tbe long list of cases cited in Dnnn’s Workmen’s Compensation, Sec. 179, 1963 Cumulative Supplement, that further illustration of tbe. rule is not needed. Tbe order of tbe commission is affirmed.

Affirmed.

McGehee, G. J., and Ethridge, Rodgers and Jones, JJ., concur.