Adams v. American Employers Ins. Co. of Boston

• Citation: 198 N.E. 147,292 Mass. 260
• Parties: ADAMS v. AMERICAN EMPLOYERS INS. CO. OF BOSTON et al.
• Decision Date: 31 October 1935
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

292 Mass. 260

198 N.E. 147

ADAMS v. AMERICAN EMPLOYERS INS. CO. OF BOSTON et al.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Worcester.

October 31, 1935

Suit in equity by John Adams against the American Employers Insurance Company of Boston, Mass., and another. From an adverse decree, the named defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

Appeal from Superior Court, Worcester County Williams, judge.

C. C Milton and R. C. Milton, both of Worcester, for appellant.

H. H Hartwell, C. N. Dewey, M. B. Fitz, and R. W. Lewis, all of Worcester, for appellees.

CROSBY, Justice.

This is a suit in equity brought in the superior court under G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 214, § 3(10), to reach and apply the obligation of the defendant insurance company arising under a policy of motor vehicle liability insurance issued pursuant to the compulsory motor vehicle statute (St.1925, c. 346, G. L. [Ter. Ed.] c. 90, §§ 34A-34J) to the defendant Cinsky as the owner of an automobile hearse. The bill alleges that on May 14, 1934, the plaintiff recovered judgment against Cinsky in the sum of $1,508.50 as damages and $71.05 as costs of suit; that said judgment was recovered as the result of injuries caused to the plaintiff by an automobile accident which occurred on January 7, 1930; that the judgment had remained unsatisfied for more than thirty days since it was rendered and that it remains unsatisfied. The case is before this court on the pleadings, an agreed statement of facts, and a final decree directing the defendant company and Cinsky to pay to the plaintiff the amount of the judgment against Cinsky. From the order and the final decree the company appealed.

It appears from the agreed facts that on January 7, 1930, the plaintiff was employed by Cinsky as a spare driver of an automobile hearse, and on that date in the course of his employment he was operating the hearse on a highway in this commonwealth accompanied by Cinsky. Owing to a defect in the mechanism of the hearse it left the road, and as a consequence the plaintiff was injured. At the time of the accident Cinsky was not insured under the Workmen's Compensation Act (G. L. [Ter. Ed.] c. 152). The hearse, at the time of the injury, was registered and insured in the name of Matthew A. Civinsky in the defendant company. Matthew A. Civinsky is the same person as the defendant Matthew A. Cinsky. As the hearing was upon an agreed statement of facts this court considers questions involved without reference to the decision of the trial judge. Stuart v. Sargent, 283 Mass. 536, 541, 186 N.E. 649.

It was said by this court in Rose v. Franklin Surety Co., 281 Mass. 538, at pages 540, 541, 183 N.E. 918, 919:‘ The primary object of the compulsory motor vehicle insurance statute is to provide security for the payment of damages for the injury or death of travellers on public highways caused by the negligent operation of motor vehicles. * * * The plaintiff was not obliged to sue the employer of his intestate. He chose, as was his right, to bring suit against * * * the actual wrongdoer, whose liability as well as the amount of damages has now been legally fixed in a judgment. The plaintiff here seeks to have the security of the policy issued by the defendant insurance company applied to the payment of that judgment. The security afforded by an insurance policy issued pursuant to the...