Skislak v. Cont'l Mining & Smelting Corp...
| Decision Date | 17 April 1948 |
| Docket Number | No. 264.,264. |
| Citation | 59 A.2d 9,137 N.J.L. 157 |
| Parties | SKISLAK v. CONTINENTAL MINING & SMELTING CORPORATION. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Certiorari proceeding by Mary Skislak against the Continental Mining & Smelting Corporation to review a judgment of the Hudson County Board of Common Pleas reversing an order of the Workmen's Compensation Bureau reopening the matter of prosecutor's petition for compensation.
Writ dismissed.
January term, 1948, before DONGES, COLIE and EASTWOOD, JJ.
Aaron A. Melniker and Frank W. Heilenday, both of Jersey City, for the prosecutor.
James J. Skeffington, of Newark, for the defendant.
The writ of certiorari allowed in this case brings up for review a judgment of the Hudson County Court of Common Pleas reversing an order of the Workmen's Compensation Bureau which order re-opened the matter of prosecutor's petition for compensation, said petition having theretofore been dismissed for failure to prosecute in accordance with the rules and the statutes.
The prosecutrix filed a petition seeking compensation for the death of her husband allegedly resulting from an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment by defendant on October 19th, 1943. The petition was filed October 21st, 1943, and the matter was allowed to lie without action until September, 1946, when the attorney for the employer caused to be served by registered mail upon the attorney for petitioner a notice under the statute, R.S. 34:15-54, N.J.S.A., of motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution. This notice was delivered by the United States postoffice agent to the office of the attorney and was receipted for by an employee in the office. On November 14th, 1946, the petition for compensation was dismissed. Thereafter petitioner, having secured other counsel, sought and obtained an order reinstating her petition. On appeal to the Common Pleas this action of the Bureau was reversed, and the present writ was allowed to review that action.
It is argued that the order of dismissal of November 14th, 1946, was improvidently entered in that there was no proper service of the notice to dismiss. We think it is clear that the notice was delivered at the office of the attorney of record for the petitioner. In fact, it appears from the allegations of the petition to re-open the judgment that petitioner and her attorney had actual knowledge of the notice of motion. In the absence of any statutory requisite as to the manner of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Barry v. Wallace J. Wilck, Inc.
...of the County Court has been raised in several recent cases, with conflicting results. Compare Skislak v. Continental Mining and Smelting Corp., 137 N.J.L. 157, 59 A.2d 9 (Sup.Ct.1948), and Nemeth v. Otis Elevator Co., Inc., 52 N.J.Super. 373, 145 A.2d 525 (Cty.Ct.1958), reversed 55 N.J.Sup......
-
Stone v. Dugan Bros. Of N.J. Inc.
...to vacate it, ‘in the absence of fraud or conduct which would give rise to an estoppel.’ See Skislak v. Continental Mining & Smelting Corp., Sup.1948, 137 N.J.L. 157, 59 A.2d 9. The petitioner contends, on the other hand, (1) that the Bureau's authority to vacate an order of dismissal for l......
-
Skislak v. Cont'l Mining & Smelting Corp...
...of the Hudson Pleas claimant appealed to the former Supreme Court by certiorari which affirmed the judgment and dismissed the writ, 59 A.2d 9, 37 N.J.L. 157 and the claimant appeals. Reversed and remanded. Aaron A. Melniker, of Jersey City, for appellant. James J. Skeffington, of Newark, fo......
- Dorion v. Fed. Shipbldg. & Dry Dock Co.