Sinclair v. Director of the Division of Employment Security

Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div.

Sinclair v. Director of the Division of Employment Security

8 Mass. App. Dec. 13

CourtMassachusetts District Court, Appellate Division

DecidedSeptember 22, 1954

DocketNo. 319843

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 8 Mass. App. Dec. 13 (Sinclair v. Director of the Division of Employment Security) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts District Court, Appellate Division primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Sinclair v. Director of the Division of Employment Security, 8 Mass. App. Dec. 13 (Mass. Ct. App. 1954).

Pincite

Opinion

Adlow, C. J.

After being denied the benefits to which he claimed to be entitled under the provisions of G. L. c. 151 A (Employment Security Act) the [14]*14petitioner, Percy A. Sinclair, pursued his rights of appeal as provided by §42 of the aforesaid c. 151 A. and in the Supreme Judicial Court the decision of the lower court was reversed. On January 29, 1954 the following rescript was filed in the Supreme Judicial Court:

Angelo Morello, for the petitioner. Stephen F. Lopiano, for the respondent.

"Decision of District Court reversed. Case remanded to the board of review for further proceedings in conformity with the opinion”.

Without waiting for the board of review to comply with the terms of this rescript, the petitioner on February 4, 1934 presented a motion in the Municipal Court of the City of Boston for the allowance of the petitioner’s costs, and the court disposed of the motion as follows:

"Petitioner’s motion for costs heard and allowed and judgment for costs against both respondents to be entered on Friday, February 12, 1934 at 10:00 a.m. in the amount of $208.25.”

From this disposition of the motion by the trial justice the respondents have brought this appeal to the Appellate Division. Such procedure ignores the appellate routine prescribed by the provisions of G. L. c. 151 A, §42. As a cause deriving from the assertion of a claim under the Employment Security Act, (c. 151A) any person aggrieved by a ruling of a district judge may appeal directly to the Supreme Judicial Court. It follows that this court is without jurisdiction to hear this appeal and the order of this court must be.

Report Dismissed.

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

Adlow, C. J.

After being denied the benefits to which he claimed to be entitled under the provisions of G. L. c. 151 A (Employment Security Act) the [14]*14petitioner, Percy A. Sinclair, pursued his rights of appeal as provided by §42 of the aforesaid c. 151 A. and in the Supreme Judicial Court the decision of the lower court was reversed. On January 29, 1954 the following rescript was filed in the Supreme Judicial Court:

Angelo Morello, for the petitioner. Stephen F. Lopiano, for the respondent.

"Decision of District Court reversed. Case remanded to the board of review for further proceedings in conformity with the opinion”.

Without waiting for the board of review to comply with the terms of this rescript, the petitioner on February 4, 1934 presented a motion in the Municipal Court of the City of Boston for the allowance of the petitioner’s costs, and the court disposed of the motion as follows:

"Petitioner’s motion for costs heard and allowed and judgment for costs against both respondents to be entered on Friday, February 12, 1934 at 10:00 a.m. in the amount of $208.25.”

From this disposition of the motion by the trial justice the respondents have brought this appeal to the Appellate Division. Such procedure ignores the appellate routine prescribed by the provisions of G. L. c. 151 A, §42. As a cause deriving from the assertion of a claim under the Employment Security Act, (c. 151A) any person aggrieved by a ruling of a district judge may appeal directly to the Supreme Judicial Court. It follows that this court is without jurisdiction to hear this appeal and the order of this court must be.

Report Dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

8 Mass. App. Dec. 13, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sinclair-v-director-of-the-division-of-employment-security-massdistctapp-1954.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack