Barry v. Wallace J. Wilck, Inc.
| Decision Date | 29 April 1960 |
| Docket Number | No. A--4083,A--4083 |
| Citation | 61 N.J.Super. 299,160 A.2d 676 |
| Parties | William T. BARRY, Petitioner-Respondent, v. WALLACE J. WILCK, INC., Respondent-Appellant. |
| Court | New Jersey County Court |
William J. Straub, Newark, for petitioner-respondent (Joseph P. Dunn, Newark, attorney).
Isidor Kalisch, Newark, for respondent-appellant.
LYONS, J.C.C.
On this appeal the respondent attacks an order of the Workmen's Compensation Division setting aside a dismissal of the petitioner's claim, which dismissal had been entered for the reason of lack of prosecution as provided for in R.S. 34:15--54. Following oral argument of the appeal the court raised the problem of its jurisdiction to review an interlocutory order of the Division and invited counsel to express their views on the subject.
The County Court is not a court of general appellate jurisdiction. Whatever power it has to hear and determine appeals from the Workmen's Compensation Division is derived from N.J.S.A. 34:15--66, which provides, in part, as follows:
'Either party may appeal from the judgment of the director, deputy director, or referee, to the County Court (etc.) * * * The judgment entered in the County Court on any thereby determined to be due. * * *' binding, and proceedings thereon shall only be for the recovery of moneys thereby determined to be due. * * *
The use of the word 'judgment,' without any qualifying or amplifying language, and in the context found, imports the idea of 'final judgment.' Clearly, it deals with the final disposition of the issues raised in a proceeding. It is unreasonable to conclude that the Legislature intended to convey the idea that all intermediate and interlocutory orders made by the Division in the course of its processing a compensation claim should be appealable as a matter of right. This would encourage piecemeal appeals and could embarrass the disposition of a cause by vexatious recourse to the appellate tribunal. It would seem anomalous, too, that there should exist a right of appeal to the County Court from an interlocutory order, when, as a matter of rule, further appeal to the Appellate Division depends upon the exercise of the discretionary power of that court.
While I am in accord with the result reached in Barclay v. Linden Flight Service, Inc., 56 N.J.Super. 434, 153 A.2d 400 (Cty.Ct.1959), it is for the reason above stated, rather than for the reason that the practice and procedure laid down in the Supreme Court rules do not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Barry v. Wallace J. Wilck, Inc.
...it had no jurisdiction to entertain an appeal from an interlocutory order. The opinion of the County Court is reported in 61 N.J.Super. 299, 160 A.2d 676 (1960). Wilck thereupon secured from this court, pursuant to R.R. 2:2--3, leave to 'appeal from the Order of the Essex County Court dismi......
-
Andersen v. Well-Built Homes of Central Jersey, Inc.
...disability are part of one case which must be considered as a whole on appeal to the County Court. See Barry v. Wallace J. Wilck, Inc., 61 N.J.Super. 299, 160 A.2d 676 (Cty.Ct.1960). The County Court has a duty upon review of a single case to make independent findings of fact and law. Dunay......
-
Andersen v. Well-Built Homes of Central Jersey, Inc.
...permanent disability are part of one case which must be considered as a whole on appeal to the County Court. See Barry v. Wilck, 61 N.J.Super. 299, 160 A.2d 676 (Cty.Ct.1960). For the reasons herein assigned, the judgment of the Workmen's Compensation Division shall be modified to provide t......
-
Johnson v. C & H Const. Co.
...The current proceeding must have been completely disposed of so far as the court has power to dispose of it. Barry v. Wallace J. Wilck, Inc., 61 N.J.Super. 299, 160 A.2d 676 (1960). The pleadings raise issues concerning disability, medical and surgical benefits and attorney The judgment awa......