Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
Judges

MARIA DE LORENZO, PETITIONER-DEFENDANT, v. BOTANY WORSTED MILLS,RESPONDENT-PROSECUTOR.

After an appeal from a judgment in a workmen's compensation case has been perfected, the bureau has no jurisdiction to reopen its judgment for the purpose of reconsidering the case, and cannot thereafter acquire jurisdiction by a subsequent order dismissing the appeal entered long after the order of reinstatement has been removed to this court by certiorari.

The opinion of the court was delivered by PARKER, J.

This is a workmen's compensation case. There was a dismissal of the petition in the bureau, on March 19th, 1936, after a hearing on the merits. Petitioner then appealed to the Court of Common Pleas and notice of appeal was filed in due season April 7th, 1936. The record having been thus removed to the Pleas, petitioner, about May 13th, 1936, applied to the bureau for a reopening of the judgment dismissing the petition and for a rehearing. The application for the rehearing was granted after argument, under date of August 6th, 1936. The present writ brings up for review this order granting the rehearing.

We are clearly of opinion that the order cannot stand. The appeal having removed the record to the Court of Common Pleas, the deputy commissioner and the bureau had no jurisdiction of the cause to entertain an application for a rehearing.

It may not be out of place to add that the cause was argued before this court on January 19th; and, after the argument, on the 21st counsel for petitioner obtained from the Common Pleas an order "consented to" by the attorney of record for the petitioner and purporting to dismiss the appeal, a copy of which order was then sent to each member of the court. But whatever may be the effect of this order on the appeal at the time of its entry, we consider it quite nugatory for the purpose of this writ, under which the court reviews the situation as it existed at the time of issue. The order dismissing the appeal has no efficacy to endow the bureau with jurisdiction of the cause as of a date some eight months prior to the 21st of January, 1937, when it was taken out.

Let the order of reinstatement of the cause now under review be set aside, with costs.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

DE LORENZO v. BOTANY WORSTED MILLS
(Jul 20, 1937)