Cooney v. Rushmore
Supreme Court of New Jersey
On appeal from the Supremo Court, in which court the following memorandum was fded by Mr. Justice Bergen: “The prosecutor caused a petition, praying compensation for injuries as authorized by the Workmen’s Compensation act, with an order of the court fixing the day for hearing, to ho served on the defendant. The only answer interposed was that the petition was not filed with the clerk of the Court of Common Pleas within one year after the accident.
Read the full summary
On appeal from the Supremo Court, in which court the following memorandum was fded by Mr. Justice Bergen: “The prosecutor caused a petition, praying compensation for injuries as authorized by the Workmen’s Compensation act, with an order of the court fixing the day for hearing, to ho served on the defendant. The only answer interposed was that the petition was not filed with the clerk of the Court of Common Pleas within one year after the accident. This the Court of Common Pleas sustained and made an order dismissing the petition, which action is now under review, the record having been…
1Per curiam
The judgment under review herein should be affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the opinion delivered by Mr. Justice Bergen in the Supreme Court.
*669For affirmance—The Chancellor, Garrison, Stvayze, Minturn, Kalisch, Black, White, Heppbnhelmer, Williams, Taylor, Gardner, JJ. 11.
For reversal—Hone.
2Cited by6 opinions
- Pue v. . Hood, Comr. of BanksSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1942
- Pue v. HoodSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1942
- Parker v. Borough of Point PleasantSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1933
- Falco v. KaltenbachSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1925
- State ex rel. Becker v. DowlingSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1925
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.