North P. S. S. Co. v. Industrial Acc. Com.

168 P. 30, 34 Cal. App. 488, 1917 Cal. App. LEXIS 59
California Court of Appeal·Decided August 27, 1917·No. Civ. No. 2213.·Published·Cited by 7 cases

Opinion

Conceding that the record upon this application for a writ of review directed to the Industrial Accident Commission shows that the award of the commission on its face was beyond and in excess of the jurisdiction of the commission, nevertheless it also appears that the petition for the writ to this court was not made within the thirty days after the award of the commission as prescribed by the statute. That statute, we think, must be regarded as a statute of limitations in so far as the right of the petitioner to apply for the writ is concerned, and the application has not been made within the statutory time. We are compelled, therefore, to dismiss the writ, and that will be the order.

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

North P. S. S. Co. v. Industrial Acc. Com., 168 P. 30, 34 Cal. App. 488, 1917 Cal. App. LEXIS 59 (Cal. Ct. App. 1917).

168 P. 30 (North P. S. S. Co. v. Industrial Acc. Com.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Goodrich v. Indus. Accident Comm'n
140 P.2d 405 (California Supreme Court, 1943)
National Automobile Insurance v. Industrial Accident Commission
136 P.2d 815 (California Court of Appeal, 1943)
Di Paolo v. Calumet & Arizona Mining Co.
285 P. 680 (Arizona Supreme Court, 1930)
Knowles v. Whitehead Oil Co.
1926 OK 569 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1926)
North Pacific Steamship Co. v. Soley
223 P. 462 (California Supreme Court, 1924)
Thaxter v. Finn
173 P. 163 (California Supreme Court, 1918)