On appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, whose opinion is reported in 129 N.J.L. 442.
For the appellant August Arace and Sons, Inc., Henry Grosman and Isidor Kalisch.
For the appellant and respondent Foster V. Brown, David Roskein, Nicholas A. Tomasulo and Harry Cohn.
For the respondent Allied Plumbing and Heating Co., Cox & Walburg and Arthur F. Mead.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
DONGES, J. The judgments under review will be affirmed. We conclude that the conclusions of fact stated in the
opinion of Mr. Justice Porter, reported at 129 N.J.L. 442, have ample support in the testimony, and they will not be disturbed.
Appellant August Arace and Sons, Inc., argues in this court that the appeal to the Union County Court of Common Pleas, so far as it related to Arace, should have been dismissed because no appeal was taken from the determination of the Bureau as to the liability of Arace for payment of compensation to Brown, and, further, that jurisdiction over a subject-matter may not be conferred by waiver.
It is well settled in this state that jurisdiction over the subject-matter may not be conferred by consent or by waiver, where the tribunal otherwise has no jurisdiction over the subject-matter. De Feo v. Recorder's Court of Belleville, 129 N.J.L. 549.
However, we are not met with either of these difficulties. The Bureau and the Court of Common Pleas have jurisdiction of the subject-matter involved herein, when the parties are properly before those tribunals. Admittedly both Allied Plumbing and Heating Co. and appellant August Arace and Sons, Inc., were properly brought into the Workmen's Compensation Bureau. The only question for determination is as to the jurisdiction of the Union County Court of Common Pleas to hear the appeal as it affected Arace and to reverse the determination of the Bureau that Arace was not liable for any payments to the original petitioner Brown. Was Arace in that court?
Arace argues that the notice of appeal to the Common Pleas was not in time to effect an appeal from the determination in its favor. We conclude that this is not deducible from the record before us. As found by Judge McGrath in the Pleas and by the Supreme Court, the petitions originally filed had been consolidated in the Bureau and thereafter there was a single proceeding. The state of case does not conform to the rules of this court, because the time of filing the several papers does not appear. Rule 21 of the Court of Errors and Appeals.
In Fischman v. Joseph Fish & Co., 121 N.J.L. 3, Mr. Justice Parker construed R.S. 34:15-58 as requiring the definite entry of a judgment in ...