Opinion · Supreme Court of Georgia

United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Waymick

United States Fid. & Guar. Co. v. Waymick, 173 Ga. 67 (Ga. 1931)

Type
Opinion
Court
Supreme Court of Georgia
Jurisdiction
Georgia
Date
1931-07-16
Topic
general

Beck, P. J. After a careful review of the record in this case and the evidence contained therein, as well as the decision of the Court of Appeals, this court has reached the opinion that that court did not err in holding *68that the evidence warranted the industrial commission in finding that the accident arose out of and in the course of the employment, and that the judgment of the superior court affirming the award of the commission should not be reversed. The full statement of facts showing the questions and issues that arose in this ease and the discussion of the questions in the opinion of the Court of Appeals render it unnecessary to make an additional statement of facts or to further discuss the questions involved, inasmuch as we concur in that opinion. No. 8130.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Waymick. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
3 opinions
Beck, P. J.

After a careful review of the record in this case and the evidence contained therein, as well as the decision of the Court of Appeals, this court has reached the opinion that that court did not err in holding *68 that the evidence warranted the industrial commission in finding that the accident arose out of and in the course of the employment, and that the judgment of the superior court affirming the award of the commission should not be reversed. The full statement of facts showing the questions and issues that arose in this ease and the discussion of the questions in the opinion of the Court of Appeals render it unnecessary to make an additional statement of facts or to further discuss the questions involved, inasmuch as we concur in that opinion.

No. 8130. July 16, 1931. Lawrence & Abrahams, for plaintiffs in error. Spence M. Grayson, E. M. Jordan, and Bouhan c& Atkinson, contra.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Jusliees concur, except Atlovnson, J., disqualified.