Case Name: JOSEF MAZIARSKI, RESPONDENT, v. GEORGE A. OHL & COMPANY, APPELLANT
Court: Supreme Court of New Jersey
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1914-11-16
Citations: 86 N.J.L. 692
Docket Number: 
Parties: JOSEF MAZIARSKI, RESPONDENT, v. GEORGE A. OHL & COMPANY, APPELLANT.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Law Reports
Volume: 86
Pages: 692–693

Head Matter:
JOSEF MAZIARSKI, RESPONDENT, v. GEORGE A. OHL & COMPANY, APPELLANT.
Submitted July 3, 1914
Decided November 16, 1914.
On appeal from the Supreme Court, in which, court the following per curiam was filed:
“The plaintiff suffered injuries to the index finger and the middle finger of the left hand. That to the index filnger was found by the judge to be temporary and he awarded fifty per centum of plaintiff’s wages for six weeks, during which the injury prevented the use of the finger. He found the injury to the other finger to be equal to the , loss of one-half the phalange of that finger'; as the plaintiff’s wages were $15, the amount allowed for the loss of a finger would have been $7.50, and one-half of that, the amount allowed for the loss of a phalange, would have been $3.75; and an injury, equal as this was found to be, to the loss of one-half of the phalange, would, under the clause providing for a proportionate compensation, be entitled to one-half of $3.75. The judge, however, held the clause providing for a minimum compensation of $5 to be applicable, and fixed that amount for thirty weeks as the proper compensation. We have just sustained this view in James A. Banister Co. v. ICriger. The allowance of compensation for both the temporary injury and the permanent injury has been sustained in Nitram Co. v. Creagh. That distinct damage may be allowed for injury to each finger is sufficiently indicated by the provision of the statute that the amount received for more than one finger shall not exceed the amount provided in the schedule for the loss of a hand.
“The judgment is affirmed, with costs.”
For the appellant, Edwards & Smith.
For the respondent, Lambert & Stewart.

Opinion:
Pee Curiam.
The judgment under review will be affirmed, for the reasons set forth in the per curiam opinion filed in the Supreme Court.
For affirmance — 'run Chancellor, Ciitee Justice, Garrison, Trench ard, Parker, Bergen, Mtnturn, Black, Boglrt, Vredenburgh, Terhune, Heppenheimer, Williams, JJ. 13.
For reversal — None.