
    NEW YORK SWITCH AND CROSSING COMPANY, APPELLANT, v. ROSE MULLENBACH ET AL., RESPONDENTS.
    Submitted March 25, 1918
    Decided May 3, 1918.
    On appeal from the Supreme Court, in which the following per curiam, was filed:
    “This'is a workmen’s compensation case, in which judgment was given for the petitioner in the Hudson Common Pleas Court. Petitioner’s decedent, Andrew Mullenbach, was employed by the prosecutor as a foreman on March 11th, 1916; while engaged in lifting a heavy steel girder he strained the muscles of his back, aggravating two hernias; as a result he had to undergo an operation; he afterwards, on June 4th, 1916, died of a post-operative pneumonia. The trial court found as a fact that the accident arose out of and in the course of his employment. This is the controverted question in the case. Our reading of the testimony satisfied us that the trial court’s findings of fact are supported by the evidence. This is conclusive. Hulley v. Moosebrugger, 88 N. J. L. 161. There is no legal merit in the other reasons presented for setting aside the judgment.
    “The judgment of the Court of Common Pleas is affirmed, with costs.”
    For the appellant, Kalisch & Kalisch.
    
    For the respondents, Doherty & Kinkead.
    
   Per Curiam.

The judgment under review will be affirmed, for the reasons set forth in the opinion of the Supreme Court.

For affirmcmce — The Chancellor, Chief Justice, Swayze, Trenchard, Parker, Minturn, Kalisch, White, Heppenheimer, Williams, Gardner, JJ. 11.

For reversal — Hone.  