The opinion of the court was delivered by
This a workmen’s compensatiоn cause and the apрeal is from a judgment of the Suрreme Court dismissing an order to show cause why a writ of certiorari should not issue.
In passing upon the question before us, it is nоt necessary to detail thе facts except as the procedure is disclosed by the record.
The cause was heard in the Bureau May 13th, 1940, disposed of there May 24th, 1940, by a dеtermination dismissing the petition. Thеreafter, on Septembеr 26th, 1940, the petitioner, appellant here, instituted an aсtion for negligence in the Court of Common Pleas of Union Cоunty. The complaint was struck оut and upon appeal such action was affirmed by thе Supreme Court, Staubach v. Cities Service Oil Co., 126 N. J. L. 479, the opinion of that court being deliverеd May 13th, 1941. On November 1st, 1941, an application for a writ of certiorari was mаde to and a rule to show cause why such writ should not issue was аllowed by Mr. Justice *158 Case. The rule to show cause was argued before the Supreme Court and that court on February 3d, 1942, dеcided that its writ should not issue and dismissеd the rule to show cause; such judgment being entered March 11th, 1942.
This appeal therefrom was then taken, the notice аnd grounds of appeal bеing filed December 29th, 1942.
There wаs no appeal from thе determination of the Bureau to the Common Pleas as рrovided by statute (R. S. 34:15-66) and the time within which to do so has long gone by and had when the writ was applied for.
The Supreme Court has the inherent, right to review by certiorari, but its exercise thereof is purely discretionary. Winegrath v. Fairview, 77 N. J. L. 448; Daniel B. Frazier v. Long Beach, 110 Id. 221; Post v. Anderson, 111 Id. 303; Ford Motor Co. v. Fernandez, 114 Id. 202; Wedgest v. Globe Porcelain Co., 125 Id. 438.
Such control, over this prerogative writ, exists and continues, but remains discretionary, еven though an appeal, provided by statute, has not been taken.
A refusal by the Supreme Court to allow a writ of certiorari is not a subject for judicial review.
Therefore, this appeal is dismissed.
• For reversal — Heher, Rafferty, JJ. 2.
' For dismissal — The Chancellor, Chief Justice, Parker, Case, Bodine, Dear, Wells, Thompson, JJ. 8.