Dependents of George A. Vlahos v. Rutland Restaurant

• Decision Date: 06 January 1932
• Citation: 157 A. 832,104 Vt. 188
• Parties: DEPENDENTS OF GEORGE A. VLAHOS v. RUTLAND RESTAURANT ET AL
• Court: Vermont Supreme Court

157 A. 832

104 Vt. 188

DEPENDENTS OF GEORGE A. VLAHOS v. RUTLAND RESTAURANT ET AL

Supreme Court of Vermont

January 6, 1932

Special Term at Rutland, November, 1931.

Inadequate Briefing---Applicability of G. L. 1695 to appeals from Commissioner of Industries---Effect of Failure To Enter Appeal within Statutory Period---Jurisdiction of County Court.

1. Where briefing merely makes claim of error, and questions raised are not supported by argument or citation of authority, briefing is inadequate, and question will not be considered.

2. G. L. 1695, relating to time for entering and docketing appeals, applies to appeals from orders of commissioner of industries, taken under G. L. 5807, as amended by Acts of 1923, No. 106.

3. Where appeal from order of commissioner of industries to county court was duly and seasonably taken and appeal papers were filed with clerk of county court as soon as received but not until statutory period therefor had elapsed, due to their retention in commissioner's hands during time allowed for entry and docket, and commissioner's certificate which in first instance erroneously certified appeal to Supreme Court, was subsequently amended by him, and corrected certificate promptly filed with clerk by claimants' attorneys upon its receipt, held that defendants, not appearing nor filing any dilatory motion to dismiss, county court erred in dismissing appeal of its own motion because not entered in time, since court had jurisdiction of subject-matter, and defect rendering appeal voidable rather than void, appeal was valid at least until attacked.

APPEAL to county court from ruling of commissioner of industries dismissing claim of dependents of George A. Vlahos. Trial by court at the March Term, 1931, Rutland County, Sturtevant J., presiding. After evidence had been introduced tending to show circumstances under which appeal was taken and entry made, court of its own motion dismissed appeal, holding that court was without jurisdiction because appeal was not entered with clerk of court within statutory period therefor. The claimants excepted. The opinion states the case.

Judgment reversed, and cause remanded.

Novak, Bloomer & Spero for the appellants.

Present: POWERS, C. J., SLACK, MOULTON, THOMPSON, and GRAHAM, JJ.

OPINION

GRAHAM

This is an appeal from the findings and order of the commissioner of industries dismissing the claim of the claimants.

The order of the commissioner was dated August 6, 1930, and on August 8, an appeal was duly taken by the claimants to the Rutland county court. The appeal was received and filed by the commissioner on August 11. On August 29, the commissioner prepared the appeal copies and attached thereto his certificate which erroneously certified the appeal to the Supreme Court. These papers were mailed from Montpelier on August 30, and were received by claimants' attorneys on September 1, which was Labor Day. The next morning they were filed with the clerk of the Rutland county court for entry. Owing to the faulty certificate, the clerk did not enter the appeal on his docket on September 2. The commissioner, on September 5, mailed to claimants' attorneys a new certificate, which conformed to the facts. The new certificate bore the same date as the defective one, and upon receipt, it was promptly filed with the clerk, and the appeal, then, was entered and docketed. The delay in filing properly certified copies of the appeal was through no fault or neglect of the claimants or their attorneys. The defendants did not appear in the case before the county court, nor have they appeared in this Court. After evidence had been taken which established the foregoing facts and circumstances respecting the taking and filing of the appeal, the county court ruled that it was without jurisdiction to hear the case, because the appeal was not entered with the clerk within the time required by law, and, of its own motion, it dismissed the appeal. To this ruling the claimants excepted. The only question before us is whether the court erred in dismissing the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

The question is not adequately briefed by claimants; in fact, it is not briefed at all. The brief states merely that claimants seek an early and a final disposition of the case; that the commissioner takes the view that there is "no possible danger in the fact that the certificate of appeal and bond is dated August 29," and that for the purpose of the case claimants adopt the same view; they conclude that the court erred in its ruling. This is interesting as a statement, but it lacks the essential characteristics and persuasive qualities of an argument. We have repeatedly held that this is insufficient briefing, and that questions which are not supported by argument or citation of authority will not be...