Feldman v. Administrator, Unemployment Compensation Act
Decision Date | 06 May 1952 |
Citation | 138 Conn. 724,89 A.2d 210 |
Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
Parties | FELDMAN v. ADMINISTRATOR, UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION ACT. FELDMAN LOCKER PLANT, Inc. v. ADMINISTRATOR, UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION ACT. Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut |
Belton A. Copp, New London, for appellants.
Harry Silverstone, Asst. Atty. Gen., George C. Conway, Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Before BROWN, C. J., and JENNINGS, BALDWIN, INGLIS and O'SULLIVAN, JJ. BROWN, Chief Justice.
The appeal in each of these cases from the assessment of contributions against the plaintiff under the Unemployment Compensation Act was dismissed by the Superior Court. The plaintiffs have filed a consolidated appeal from the judgments. Both actions were submitted to the Superior Court on identical stipulations of fact and the decision in both turned on the identical question of law.
Since January 1, 1948, the plaintiff Abraham Feldman, as sole proprietor, has owned and operated in Norwich a grocery and locker plant business known as Feldman's Store and Locker Plant. He has personally managed this business and employed one person to help him. Since the above date the plaintiff Feldman Locker Plant, Inc., a Connecticut corporation, has owned and operated a locker plant in New London. The corporation is owned and controlled, within the meaning of § 1325b of the 1951 Cumulative Supplement to the General Statutes, by the plaintiff Abraham Feldman. He is its president and treasurer and one of its directors. From and after January 1, 1948, the corporation employed Abraham Feldman, Hyman Feldman, vice-president and general manager, and Maxwell Schwatlow, a butcher.
Section 1325b provides in part as follows: . Since Feldman had one employee and the corporation had three employees, of whom Feldman was one, the precise question is whether, within the terms of the provision quoted, each plaintiff shall be held to have had four employees on January 1, 1948, and for thirteen weeks thereafter, thereby becoming liable to assessment under the Unemployment Compensation Act.
While the plaintiffs do not question that, by reason of the provision quoted, the statute is effective to warrant disregarding the corporate veil in determining the number of employees of each plaintiff, they contend that the statute must mean that, the veil having been lifted, existence of the corporate entity cannot be asserted to afford a basis for counting Feldman as an employee of the corporation. In short, in the words of their brief, their claim is that to construe the statute as warranting the conclusion that the corporation had three instead of two employees, thus bringing both the Norwich and the New London units within the act, 'violates the spirit of this Act, which the legislature intended to cover only those employers, employing units, or interests which had four or more employees for the requisite period of time.' They therefore urge that Feldman, as the 'same interest' and 'the employer' within the meaning § 1325b(4)(a), did not have four or more persons in his employ during the period in question. This language is relied upon as authority: '[W]e are not required to give the words of the statute their literal meaning. 'The search is for the intent of the lawmakers, and when it is clearly ascertainable it prevails over the literal sense and precise letter of the statute.' * * * New Haven Savings Bank v. Warner, 128 Conn. 662, 668, 25 A.2d 50, 53.
In construing a legislative act we must not only consider it in the light of its history, its language, the purpose it is designed to serve and the circumstances surrounding its enactment but, in determining its purpose and scope, make every part operative and harmonious with every other part in so far as is possible. Savings Bank of Rockville v. Wilcox, 117 Conn. 188, 193, 167 A. 709. As we have heretofore...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
O'Neill v. O'Neill
...a legislative act, we may consider its history, its language, and the purpose it is designed to serve. Feldman v. Administrator, 138 Conn. 724, 727, 89 A.2d 210 (1952)." Hartford Federal Savings & Loan Assn. v. Tucker, 13 Conn.App. 239, 248, 536 A.2d 962 In examining the legislative history......
-
Rich v. Dixon
...their purpose and scope, make every part operative and harmonious with every other part so far as is possible. Feldman v. Administrator, 138 Conn. 724, 727, 89 A.2d 210. 'We are called upon to look beyond the literal meaning of the words to the history of the law, its language, considered i......
-
Bahre v. Hogbloom
...of a law or its literal meaning is not in all cases a correct guide to the intent and true sense of the lawmaker. Feldman v. Administrator, 138 Conn. 724, 727, 89 A.2d 210. The legislative objects must be taken into account. Norwalk v. Daniele, 143 Conn. 85, 87, 119 A.2d 732. The portion of......
-
Lechner v. Holmberg
...to the general situation is the predominant consideration. H. Duys & Co. v. Tone, 125 Conn. 300, 311, 5 A.2d 23." Feldman v. Administrator, 138 Conn. 724, 728, 89 A.2d 210, 212. We conclude, then, that the defendants were precluded by law from delivering the transcript to the plaintiff. Acc......