Case Name: CATHERINE ASLUND, RESPONDENT, v. BECKER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, APPELLANT
Court: New Jersey Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1930-10-20
Citations: 107 N.J.L. 180
Docket Number: 
Parties: CATHERINE ASLUND, RESPONDENT, v. BECKER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, APPELLANT.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Law Reports
Volume: 107
Pages: 180–181

Head Matter:
CATHERINE ASLUND, RESPONDENT, v. BECKER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, APPELLANT.
Submitted February 14, 1930
Decided October 20, 1930.
This was an appeal from the judgment of the Supreme Court directing that compensation awarded to Oscar Aslund in his lifetime should become immediately due for the entire amount of compensation, in which case the following was delivered:
Gummere, Chief Justice. “My consideration of the application of Catherine Aslund for an order directing that the balance of compensation fixed by the workmen’s compensation bureau in the case of her husband, Oscar Aslund, against his employer, the Becker Construction Company, be forthwith paid, leads me to the conclusion that it should be granted.
“The judgment of the bureau was never appealed from by the employer. It was regularly docketed in the Court of Common Pleas and afterward in the Supreme Court. Under section 11 of the act of 1911, the judgment is conclusive unless appealed or reopened by the workmen’s compensation bureau. The refusal of the bureau to consider the application of the employer to reopen the judgment, and the subsequent refusal of the Court of Common Pleas to review this action of the bureau, left the judgment in full force and effect. If the emploj'er was dissatisfied with the action of these two tribunals, it should have applied to the Supreme Court for a review of such action, and this the employer has not seen fit to do. The judgment being in full force and effect, the decision of the court in Cohen v. Slavin, 1 N. J. Mis. R. 621, is controlling upon me in determining the present application. /
“The matters set up by the employer as a bar to the apportionment of the judgment cannot be considered on this application, in view of the statutory provision referred to (section 11 of the act of 1918), which makes the judgment conclusive under the conditions existing in the present case. If the employer desires to raise the question as to whether these matters are a bar, it should do it by an independent litigation.
“The application to adjudge the whole amount to be presently due is granted.”
For the appellant, Turner & Stalker.
For the respondent, Henry Carless.

Opinion:
Pee Curiam.
The judgment under review herein should be affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the opinion delivered by Chief Justice Gummere in the Supreme Court.
For affirmance — The Chancelloe, Tbenchabd, Campbell, Lloyd, Case, Bodine, Daly, Donges, Yah Buskibk, McGlehhoh, Kays, Heteield, Deae, Wells, JJ. 14.
For reversal — Hone.