Ewell v. State Workmen's Insurance Fund

Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas

Ewell v. State Workmen's Insurance Fund

4 Pa. D. & C. 455, 1924 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 281

CourtPennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County

DecidedMarch 13, 1924

StatusPublished

This text of 4 Pa. D. & C. 455 (Ewell v. State Workmen's Insurance Fund) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ewell v. State Workmen's Insurance Fund, 4 Pa. D. & C. 455, 1924 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 281 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1924).

Pincite

Opinion

Henry, P. J.,

52nd judicial district, specially presiding,

The plaintiff has taken a rule to strike off the appeal in this case taken by the State Workmen’s Insurance Fund from the decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Board. The petition for the rule sets forth that no notice of the appeal was given the plaintiff, as required by section 427 of article vi of the Act of June 26,1919, P. L. 642, 655, and this section of the act provides as follows: “The party taking the appeal shall, at the time of taking the appeal, serve upon the adverse party a written notice thereof, setting forth the date of the appeal to the court in which the same is filed, and shall file with his notice of appeal such exceptions to the action of the board as he may desire to take, and shall specify the findings of fact, if any, of the board, or of the referee, sustained by the board, which he alleges to be unsupported by competent evidence.”

There is no denial of this averment, and so it must be taken to be admitted.

This provision of the act is mandatory, and, in the absence of compliance therewith, the appeal must be stricken off.

And now, to wit, March 13, 1924, rule absolute.

NOTE. — See De Marko v. Hiller, 3 D. & C. 533; Neil v. Lee Tire and Rubber Co., 3 D. & C. 811.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Henry, P. J.,

52nd judicial district, specially presiding,

The plaintiff has taken a rule to strike off the appeal in this case taken by the State Workmen’s Insurance Fund from the decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Board. The petition for the rule sets forth that no notice of the appeal was given the plaintiff, as required by section 427 of article vi of the Act of June 26,1919, P. L. 642, 655, and this section of the act provides as follows: “The party taking the appeal shall, at the time of taking the appeal, serve upon the adverse party a written notice thereof, setting forth the date of the appeal to the court in which the same is filed, and shall file with his notice of appeal such exceptions to the action of the board as he may desire to take, and shall specify the findings of fact, if any, of the board, or of the referee, sustained by the board, which he alleges to be unsupported by competent evidence.”

There is no denial of this averment, and so it must be taken to be admitted.

This provision of the act is mandatory, and, in the absence of compliance therewith, the appeal must be stricken off.

And now, to wit, March 13, 1924, rule absolute.

NOTE. — See De Marko v. Hiller, 3 D. & C. 533; Neil v. Lee Tire and Rubber Co., 3 D. & C. 811.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

4 Pa. D. & C. 455, 1924 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 281, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ewell-v-state-workmens-insurance-fund-pactcomplphilad-1924.