In considering these cases the facts must be considered. free from the influence of well settled principles governing cases of negligences and to keep in view that we are dealing in lieu thereof with a state policy of social insurance in which the doctrine of negligence has no abiding place. Newark Hair & Bi-Products Co. v. Feldman, 89 N. J. The right of recovery has been designated as contractual or quasi-contractual in its nature, and irrespective of negligence or other common-law liability on the part of the employer. American Radiator Co. v. Rogge, 86 N. J. L. 436, 92 Jacowicz v. D. L. & W., 87 N. J. L. 273, 92 Atl. 946. And one of the Federal judges said it is in a class by itself, but considered as contractual by force of the statute. Berton v. Tietjen & Lang Dry Dock Co., 219 Fed. 763. In New York in holding that the compensation payable under our act could not be determined in an action in the New York Courts it was said that the New Jersey act does not give an independent cause of action enforceable anywhere. It provided an administrative remedy by prescribed procedure in New Jersey as a substitute for any cause of action there might otherwise be. Verdicchio v. McNab & Harlin, 164 N. Y. S. 290. Whether Statute Is to Have Strict or Liberal Con struction. The provisions of the statute should be construed in the light of the statute as a whole. Sexton v. Newark Dist. Tel. Co., 84 N. J. L. 85, 86 The law is to be construed liberally. Nitram Co. v. Essex Common Pleas, 84 N. J. L. 243, Borst v. Jersey City, 101 Atl. 1033, 90 N. J. L. 454. In the Borst case the reason for liberal construction is given that the statute is a remedial law of prime import. The right to workmen's compensation, however, is the creature of statute and cannot be extended by judicial construction in opposition to the words of the statute. Splitdorf Electrical Co. v. King, 90 N. J. L. 421, 103 It might be noted that it has been said in the New York Courts that the proceeding under the New Jersey act being statutory, must be strictly construed and followed, and that this being so the recovery must be had before the Common Pleas Court rather than in a court of another state. Lehmann v. Ramo Films Inc., 155 N. Y. S. 1032, (in which the defendant had left New Jersey and was outside the jurisdiction of any Common Pleas Court, which fact was held immaterial). McCarthy v. McAllister Steamboat Co., 158 N. Y. S. 563. Verdicchio v. McNab & Harlin, 164 N. Y. S. 290. Who May Sue. In Hoey v. Superior Laundry Co., 88 Atl. 823, and Creagh v. The Nitram Co., N. J. L. J. Compilation of Employers' Liability Cases 50, 35 N. J. L. 328; Vreeland v. Cogswell Boulter Co., 37 N. J. L. J. 57, as well as other cases, proceedings in behalf of an infant were instituted by a next friend appointed by the Common Pleas. The father of a deceased unmarried employe may initiate a proceeding under this act where no executor or administrator has qualified. Reimers v. Proctor Pub. Co., 89 Atl. 931, 85 N. J. L. 441. The proceeding for compensation in case of death of a workman, where no executor or administrator qualified, may properly be brought by the person to whom under paragraph nineteen of the act, payment is to be made; that is, payment for the purpose of distribution. McFarland v. Central R. Co., 87 Atl. 144, 84 N. J. L. 435. Party entitled to administration may sue. Connors v. Public Service Elec. Co., 97 Atl. 792, 89 N. See also paragraph 19 of act and notes. Pleading. An allegation in a petition of negligence on the part of an employer is surplusage. Scott v. Payne Bros., 89 Atl. 927, 85 N. J. L. 446. Practice. Striking Out of Answer. In McManus v. Barbour Flax Spinning Co., 39 N. J. L. J. 50, an answer was stricken out by Common Pleas. The respondent contended that the motion like a demurrer at common law searched the record with the result that a judgment should go against the party who had filed the first defective pleading and that accordingly judgment should go against the petitioner because the petition was based on a contract to settle upon which an action at law was the only remedy. The respondent's contention was overruled. Question of Law. Whether more compensation should be allowed for an injury to an ankle than is allowed for loss of a foot is a question of law which involves a construction of the statute. Rakiec v. D., L. & W. R. Co., 88 Atl. 953. Jurisdiction. Exclusiveness of Common Pleas. The method of procedure laid down in this paragraph must be followed in the determination of all rights under Section II. of the act. Parro v. N. Y., S. & W. R. Co., 88 Atl. 825. This was before 1918 act on page 175. Id. Where There Has Been a Settlement. Where a petition is filed under Section II. in a case where there has been an alleged settlement, the objection that the court has no jurisdiction is not tenable if the petitioner claims compensation is due and the employer denies it. Pabisz v. Newark Spring Mattress Co., N. J. L. J. The effect and validity of a settlement agreement based upon the provisions of Section II. of the Workmen's Compensation Act can only be determined in the first instance by the Court of Common Pleas. Parro v. N. Y., S. & W. R. Co., 88 Atl. 825. Defenses. Willful Negligence. Willful negligence is no defense under Section II. of the act, nor will it oust the court of jurisdiction if set up unless the conditions required to bring the case under Section I. are complied with. Schelf v. Kishbaugh, 37 N. J. L. J. 173. Garrabrant, Admx., v. Morris & Somerset, etc., Co., 37 West Jersey Trust Co. v. P. & R. R. Co., 88 N. J. Taylor v. Seabrook, 87 N. J. L. 407, 94 Atl. 399. Implied Discontinuance from Failure to Follow Statute. The proceedings being entirely statutory it is incumbent upon the petitioner to present the case upon the day fixed for hearing, or to continue it by stated adjournments in regular manner upon the records of the court either by consent of the defendant or by an application made upon notice to the other side. Accordingly a case cannot be set down for hearing after more than a year of inaction since the last order of continuance. Ringwalt Linoleum Works v. Liquor, 89 N. J. L. 452, 99 Atl. 124. Abatement and Revival of Suit. In Walker v. Skillman, 38 N. J. L. J. 269, the respondent died after filing petition. Order was made that the cause stand revived and proceed to final judgment against the respondent's executors. In Dippel v. Standard Motor Construction Co. (Hudson Common Pleas), an unreported case, Judge Sullivan filed an opinion holding that a workmen's compensation proceeding was governed by the Abatement Act. The respondent had contended that the proceeding was not an "action" within the meaning of that act but was a special statutory proceeding. Evidence. Ordinary Rules of Evidence Applicable. The provisions of the statute that either party may submit the claim both as to questions of law and fact means that they may submit in accordance with the legal rules of evidence applicable to the trials of a civil nature. Horn v. Arnett, 102 Atl. 366. Id. Testimony as to Transactions with Decedents. 2 Comp. Stat. 1910, page 2218, section 4, forbidding testimony touching transactions with deceased applies in a workmen's compensation proceeding before a Common Pleas judge. Horn v. Arnett, 102 Atl. 366. Witnesses may testify as to declarations of deceased as to cause of accident made immediately after it happened and before and during the time his hand was being bandaged if they constitute a part of the res gestae. Murphy v. Brown, 103 Atl. 28. Id. Objection Unavailable on Appeal. Where all parties at the trial considered evidence as stricken out and no exception or objection was taken to the ruling, an objection that such evidence was inadmissible as being hearsay will not avail on appeal. Murphy v. Brown, 103 Atl. 28. Id. Opinion Evidence as to Cause of Death. In Voorhees v. Smith Schoonmaker, 86 N. J. L. 500, 92 |