Ruoff v. Blasi
| Decision Date | 30 April 1937 |
| Docket Number | No. 17.,17. |
| Citation | 191 A. 877 |
| Parties | RUOFF v. BLASI. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Appeal from Supreme Court.
Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Stanley Blasi, for the death of his son, opposed by F. Ruoff, employer. The Court of Common Pleas reversed a judgment of the Workmen's Compensation Bureau dismissing petitioner's application to reopen a judgment and remand the cause to the bureau; the Supreme Court (117 N.J.Law, 47, 186 A. 581) granted employer's application for certiorari and from judgment affirming judgment of the Court of Common Pleas, employer appeals.
Affirmed.
Merritt Lane, of Newark, for appellant. Bozza & Bozza, of Newark (Samuel D. Bozza, of Newark, of counsel), for respondent.
We concur in the conclusion of the Supreme Court, as expressed in' the opinion delivered by Mr. Justice Perskie.
The action of the bureau in dismissing the employee's petition for a hearing and adjudication of his claim on the merits is an appealable judgment within the intendment of section 19, chapter 149 of the Laws of 1918 (P.L. p. 429), chapter 25 of the Laws of 1932 (P.L. p. 38, N.J.St.Annual 1932, § **236—60), vesting appellate jurisdiction in the respective courts of common pleas. It was plainly the legislative purpose to invest the pleas with general appellate jurisdiction of the judgments and orders of the compensation bureau; that is implicit in the statutory procedural scheme. Compare Jayson v. Pennsylvania Railroad Co., 101 N.J.Law, 159, 127 A. 169. And it was indisputably the statutory duty of the bureau to entertain the petition thus presented by the employee and to determine the question thus raised. P. Bronstein & Co. v. Hoffman, 117 N.J.Law, 500, 189 A. 121.
The challenged ruling of the referee was expressed in a letter incorporated in the state of the case. This seems to have been regarded by the parties as an adequate substitute for a formal order of dismissal. Such is, of course, a practice not to be commended. The rendition and entry of an appealable judgment or order is ordinarily a sina qua non to the exercise of appellate jurisdiction; and the failure of the record to disclose such judgment or order generally requires a dismissal of the appeal. But, inasmuch as the transcript shows that the letter was introduced into the record below as a final dismissal of the petition, and the parties have treated it as serving the purposes of a formal order of dismissal, we are disposed to consider the record as sufficiently embodying the action made the subject of review in the pleas. In the circumstances, this is a purely formal,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Barry v. Wallace J. Wilck, Inc.
...and by the further fact that it purported to follow Ruoff v. Blasi, 117 N.J.L. 47, 186 A. 581 (Sup.Ct.1936), affirmed 118 N.J.L. 314, 191 A. 877 (E. & A.1937), which, however, involved an appeal not from an interlocutory but from a final order. Cf. Jaudel v. Schoelzke, 95 N.J.L. 171, 176, 1......
-
Simon v. R. H. H. Steel Laundry, Inc., 62749
...& Rigging Co., 125 N.J.L. 484, 15 A.2d 805 (E. & A.1949); Ruoff v. Blasi, 117 N.J.L. 47, 186 A. 581 (Sup.Ct.1936), affirmed 118 N.J.L. 314, 191 A. 877 (E. & A.1937); Nagy v. Ford Motor Co., 6 N.J. 341, 78 A.2d 709, 712 (1951). In the last case cited the Supreme Court noted that in the cause......
-
Horowitz v. Rothenberg Hat Co.
...Co., 124 N.J.L. 210, 11 A. 2d 297, affirmed, 125 N.J.L. 484, 15 A.2d 805; Ruoff v. Blasi, 117 N.J.L. 47, 186 A. 581, affirmed, 118 N.J.L. 314, 191 A. 877; Eldridge v. Eldridge, 8 A.2d 188, 17 N.J.Misc. 232; J. W. Ferguson Co. v. Seaman, 119 N.J.L. 575, 197 A. 245, affirming 191 A. 739, 15 N......
-
Pasquale v. Clyde Piece Dye Works, Inc.
...or as an award on an agreed amount such as was the subject of the holding in Ruoff v. Blasi, 117 N.J.L. 47, 186 A. 581, affirmed 118 N.J.L. 314, 191 A. 877. Some of the facts were stipulated. It was stipulated that in the opinion of Dr. Blumberg, a neurologist who had made an impartial exam......