Court Opinion

ID: 3556877
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-07-05 23:07:41.697427+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:48:59.825682
License: Public Domain

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. *Page 246