Survey & Research Service, Inc. v. Director of Division of Employment Sec.
| Decision Date | 28 April 1967 |
| Citation | 226 N.E.2d 259,352 Mass. 475 |
| Parties | SURVEY & RESEARCH SERVICE, INC. v. DIRECTOR OF the DIVISION OF EMPLOYMENT SECURITY. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Thomas J. Carens, Boston, for petitioner.
Joseph S. Ayoub, Asst. Atty. Gen. (John A. Hayes, Boston, with him), for respondent.
Before WILKINS, C.J., and SPALDING, WHITTEMORE, CUTTER and REARDON, JJ.
This is a petition for review of a decision of the board of review in the Division of Employment Security holding that the petitioner was the employer of certain persons within the meaning of G.L. c. 151A, § 2.
The board's decision was rendered on February 23, 1966. The petition for review was filed on March 14, 1966. An order of notice, dated March 16, 1966, was issued by the District Court. On March 23, 1966, the petitioner mailed a copy of the order of notice to the director, which was received by him on March 24.
The director filed an answer in abatement asking that the petition be dismissed because a copy of the order was not served within seven days, as prescribed by G.L. c. 151A, § 42, as amended. The judge sustained the answer and dismissed the petition. The petitioner appealed.
Since the result will be the same, we lay to one side the petitioner's contention that the order of notice issued by the court was defective, and pass to the question whether it was seasonably served by the petitioner.
The relevant portions of § 42 read: The notice was mailed within seven days of the date of the order but it was not received within that time. We are of opinion that the notice was seasonably served. It is to be noted that the statute does not require that the notice be received within seven days from the date of the order; it requires that it 'be served * * * by registered mail' within that time. Compare G.L. c. 40A, § 21, concerning appeals from a board of appeals, which provides, 'Notice of the filing with a copy of the bill in equity shall be given to such city or town clerk so as to be received within such twenty days' (emphasis supplied).
Support for our interpretation may be found in Blair v. Laflin, 127 Mass. 518, 521. There the court was called upon to decide whether notice of the filing of a bill of exceptions was seasonable. A rule of court provided that 'exceptions shall be 'reduced to writing, and filed with the clerk, and notice...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Schulte v. Director of Division of Employment Sec.
...twenty-nine days after filing. But it is hard (although perhaps not impossible, cf. Survey & Research Serv. Inc. v. Director of the Div. of Employment Security, 352 Mass. 475, 477, 226 N.E.2d 259 (1967)) to assimilate mailing to filing, and there is the further difficulty that the day from ......
-
Zuckerman v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Greenfield
...as the applicant urges, also have a duty to ensure that the notice is received. See Survey & Research Serv. Inc. v. Director of the Div. of Employment Sec., 352 Mass. 475, 476, 226 N.E.2d 259 (1967) (statute requiring notice to "be served ... by registered mail" within seven days requires m......
-
Costello v. Board of Appeals of Lexington
...is satisfied by mailing within the time limited, regardless of the time of receipt. See Survey & Research Serv. Inc. v. Director of Div. of Employment Security, 352 Mass. 475, 226 N.E.2d 259 (1967), and cases The plaintiff argues for a result contrary to that which we reach on the basis of ......
-
Committee for Public Counsel Services v. Lookner
...Bd., 414 Mass. 303, 306, 607 N.E.2d 744 (1993) (other citations omitted). Compare Survey & Research Serv., Inc. v. Director of the Div. Of Employment Sec., 352 Mass. 475, 476, 226 N.E.2d 259 (1967) (statute requiring mail notice within seven days requires mailing, not receipt, within seven ......