Palozzi v. American Brass Co.

Connecticut Superior Court

Palozzi v. American Brass Co.

15 Conn. Supp. 33, 1947 Conn. Super. LEXIS 39

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedApril 25, 1947

DocketFile No. 16934

StatusPublished

This text of 15 Conn. Supp. 33 (Palozzi v. American Brass Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut Superior Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Palozzi v. American Brass Co., 15 Conn. Supp. 33, 1947 Conn. Super. LEXIS 39 (Colo. Ct. App. 1947).

Pincite

Opinion

MELLITZ, J.

This is an appeal from a finding and award of a workmen’s compensation commissioner. The defendant moves to erase the appeal on 'the ground that the appeal was not taken within ten days after entry of the finding and award by the commissioner, as required by General Statutes, Cum. Sup. 1935, § 1614c.

[34]*34The statutory requirement has been construed to mean that an appeal must be taken within ten days after notice to the appellant of the entry of the finding and award. Murphy v. Elms Hotel, 104 Conn. 351, 352. The objection sought to be raised by the defendant involves the determination of a question of fact. A plea in abatement and not a motion to erase was the appropriate remedy to which the defendant should have resorted to present the question. Id., p. 354.

The motion to erase is denied.

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

MELLITZ, J.

This is an appeal from a finding and award of a workmen’s compensation commissioner. The defendant moves to erase the appeal on 'the ground that the appeal was not taken within ten days after entry of the finding and award by the commissioner, as required by General Statutes, Cum. Sup. 1935, § 1614c.

[34]*34The statutory requirement has been construed to mean that an appeal must be taken within ten days after notice to the appellant of the entry of the finding and award. Murphy v. Elms Hotel, 104 Conn. 351, 352. The objection sought to be raised by the defendant involves the determination of a question of fact. A plea in abatement and not a motion to erase was the appropriate remedy to which the defendant should have resorted to present the question. Id., p. 354.

The motion to erase is denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

15 Conn. Supp. 33, 1947 Conn. Super. LEXIS 39, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/palozzi-v-american-brass-co-connsuperct-1947.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack