Jackson v. Florence Thread Co.
| Decision Date | 05 October 1934 |
| Docket Number | No. 210.,210. |
| Citation | 175 A. 96 |
| Parties | JACKSON v. FLORENCE THREAD CO. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Proceeding for compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Samuel Jackson, employee, opposed by the Florence Thread Company, employer. An order by the deputy commissioner of the Workmen's Compensation Bureau dismissing the petition was affirmed by the court of common pleas, and petitioner brings certiorari.
Judgment reversed, and case remitted.
Argued May term, 1934, before TRENCHARD, HEHER, and PERSKIE, JJ.
Joseph Beck Tyler, of Camden, for prosecutor.
George B. Evans, of Moorestown, for respondent.
Samuel Jackson (hereinafter called the workman) was injured by an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment by the Florence Thread Company (hereinafter called the employer). The accident happened November 21, 1928. No formal petition for compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act was filed until July 27, 1932, when the workman filed the petition now in question. That petition alleged, among other things, permanent disahility. The employer's answer admitted that notice of the accident was given to it on the date of the accident.
At the hearing before the Workmen's Compensation Bureau, the employer moved to dismiss the petition on the ground that it was barred by the statute of limitations. That motion was granted by the deputy commissioner. An appeal was taken by the workman to the Burlington court of common pleas, and the dismissal was affirmed. The workman then obtained this writ of certiorari and now questions the propriety of that judgment.
The workman contends that the petition should not have been dismissed, because the failure to file reports, particularly the so-called second report, as required by the act (P. L. 1924, c. 187, p. 401 [Comp. St. Supp. 1924, § **236—94 et seq.]), deprived the employer of the defense of the statute of limitations.
We think there is merit in this contention.
The act of 1924 requires an employer carrying insurance, as required by chapter 178 of Laws of 1917 (Comp. St. Supp. 1924, § **236—68), when an accident occurs to one of his employees, to make report thereof in accordance with the terms of his insurance policy. It is admitted that the employer here had notice of the accident on the day that it occurred, and it appears that the insurance company received notice of the accident from the employer not later than December 4, 1928.
Now section 3 of the act of 1924 (Comp. St. Supp. 1924, § **236—96), after providing that the insurance carrier, immediately upon receiving knowledge of the accident to an employee, shall make report thereof to the Workmen's Compensation Bureau, then further provides that ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Nat'l Silk Dyeing Co. v. Grobart
-
Mahoney v. City of Paterson
...been in effect since April 27, 1931. The latter act deprived petitioner of no vested or existing right of action. Jackson v. Florence Thread Co., 175 A. 96, 12 N.J.Misc. 774, affirmed 115 N.J.Law, 175, 176, 178 A. 729; Tiffany & Co. v. Starzmann, 118 N.J.Law, 57, 191 A. Mr. Justice HEHER, a......
-
Tiffany & Co. v. Starzmann
...within the field of operation of the statute. We are constrained by the decision of the Supreme Court in Jackson v. Florence Thread Company, 175 A. 96, 12 N.J.Misc. 774, at p. 775 (which makes very clear that the subject under discussion is the report required from the insurance carrier), a......
-
Schoener v. Watson Elevator Co.
...set forth the facts upon which the determination was reached, and I do not believe affects the case at bar. In Jackson v. Florence Thread Co., 175 A. 96, 97, 12 N.J.Misc. 774, affirmed by the Court of Errors and Appeals in 115 N.J. Law, 175, 178 A. 729, 730, cited by petitioner, the acciden......