Harrington & Richardson Arms Co. v. Director of the Division of Employment Sec.

• Decision Date: 06 January 1949
• Citation: 83 N.E.2d 441,323 Mass. 603
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
• Parties: HARRINGTON & RICHARDSON ARMS COMPANY v. DIRECTOR OF THE DIVISION OF EMPLOYMENT SECURITY & others.

323 Mass. 603

83 N.E.2d 441

HARRINGTON & RICHARDSON ARMS COMPANY v. DIRECTOR OF THE DIVISION OF EMPLOYMENT SECURITY & others.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Worcester.

January 6, 1949

September 28, 1948.

Present: QUA, C.

J., LUMMUS, DOLAN RONAN, & SPALDING, JJ.

Employment Security. District Court, Review respecting employment security. Under Section 42 of G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 151A, as appearing in St. 1943, c.

534, Section 6, and as amended by St. 1947, c. 434, service upon the director of the division of employment security of an order of notice issued by a District Court upon the seasonable filing of a petition by an employing unit for a review of a decision by the board of review is sufficient if made at least fourteen days before the return day of the order; it need not be made within the period of twenty days after the mailing of the decision of the board of review prescribed for filing the petition.

PETITION, filed in the Central District Court of Worcester on December 27, 1947 for a review of a decision of the board of review in the division of employment security.

The case was heard by Allen, J. F. X. Reilly, Jr., for the petitioner.

A. E. LoPresti Assistant Attorney General, (L.

H. Arber with him,) for the respondent Director of the Division of Employment Security.

RONAN, J. In these proceedings brought under G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 151A, as appearing in St. 1941, c. 685, Section 1, the board of review, in a decision mailed to the petitioner, the employing unit, on December 8, 1947, found that the claimants, former employees of the petitioner, were entitled to unemployment benefits. The petitioner on December 27, 1947, filed a petition for judicial review in the Central District

Court of Worcester under G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 151A, Section 42, as appearing in St. 1943, c. 534, Section 6, and as amended by St. 1947, c 434, and on the same day the District Court issued an order of notice returnable January 27, 1948. On January 2, 1948, the petitioner sent copies of the petition and order of notice to the respondent director of the division of employment security by registered mail, and these were received by him on January 6, 1948. A motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction was filed by the director, which was heard and allowed on the ground that the petition was not served within twenty days after the date of the mailing of the decision of the board of review. The petitioner filed a claim of appeal from the decision dismissing the petition, and the case was reported to this court in accordance with the rules of the District Courts made pursuant to Section 42.

The question presented is whether Section 42 requires the petition for review to be filed and served within the period of twenty days.

The pertinent provisions of Section 42 read as follows: "The director or any interested person aggrieved by any decision in any proceeding before the board of review may obtain judicial review of such decision by filing, within twenty days of the date of mailing of such decision, a petition for review thereof in the district court within the judicial district whereof he lives, or is or was last employed, or has his usual place of business, and in such proceeding every other party to the proceeding before the board shall be made a party respondent. . . . Upon the filing of a petition for review by an aggrieved party other than the director a notice and copy of the petition shall be served upon the director by registered mail fourteen days at least before the return day, and at the same time there shall be delivered to the director as many copies of the notice and petition as there are parties respondent."

The petition was filed in the District Court with the clerk of the court within the time prescribed by the statute and, the petition having been entered, an order of notice issued on the same day. No contention can be successfully made that the petitioner did not comply with the statute with reference...