From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Stroebel v. Jefferson Trucking Rigging Co.

Supreme Court of New Jersey
Feb 11, 1940
124 N.J.L. 210 (N.J. 1940)

Opinion

Argued January 16, 1940 —

Decided February 11, 1940.

1. A compromise settlement of a compensation claim for less than the amount to which the dependents are entitled under the statute is entirely nugatory.

2. A petition to review a compromise settlement of a compensation claim filed well within the period when the statutory compensation should have been paid will be entertained by the bureau.

On certiorari.

Before Justices BODINE and PERSKIE.

For the prosecutor, William L. Flanagan and William P. Braun.

For the defendant, Meyer Bronstein.


This writ brings up for review the denial of defendant's motion to dismiss a claim petition filed June 20th, 1939, to review a former compromise agreement on the ground that the same was contrary to the statute.

It appears that on January 31st, 1929, a petition was filed in the Workmen's Compensation Bureau claiming compensation by reason of the death on November 5th, 1928, of Otto Stroebel. The matter came on for hearing on June 27th, 1929, and after a partial trial a conference was held and there was a stipulation, a settlement agreement and a discontinuance entered with the approval of the Bureau. A lump sum was paid representing about one-half of the compensation to which the widow and her minor children would have been entitled to. Such compromise agreement was entirely nugatory. P. Bronstein Co. v. Hoffman, 117 N.J.L. 500 ; Ruoff v. Blasi, Id. 47; affirmed, 118 Id. 314.

It appears from the record that at the time the petition to reopen was filed several of the minor children of the deceased were still under the age of sixteen and entitled to compensation at the rates fixed by statute, if their deceased parent met with death by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment.

The Bureau had a right to entertain the petition inasmuch as the same was filed well within the period when the compensation in the statutory sense should have been paid. King v. Western Electric Co., 122 N.J.L. 442 , affirmed in the Court of Errors and Appeals on the opinion below at the October Term, 1939.

The action taken in the Bureau will be affirmed and the writ will be dismissed, with costs.


Summaries of

Stroebel v. Jefferson Trucking Rigging Co.

Supreme Court of New Jersey
Feb 11, 1940
124 N.J.L. 210 (N.J. 1940)
Case details for

Stroebel v. Jefferson Trucking Rigging Co.

Case Details

Full title:JULIA STROEBEL, PETITIONER, DEFENDANT IN CERTIORARI, v. JEFFERSON TRUCKING…

Court:Supreme Court of New Jersey

Date published: Feb 11, 1940

Citations

124 N.J.L. 210 (N.J. 1940)
11 A.2d 297

Citing Cases

Torbyn v. South River Sand Co.

We would add that laches is a defense when the proofs establish that the respondent has been prejudiced…

Stroebel v. Jefferson Trucking Rigging Co.

9. A proceeding for compensation under our statute is suigeneris; it is summary in nature, and the procedural…