Gillard v. Manufacturers' Ins. Co. of Philadelphia, Pa.

• Decision Date: 20 June 1919
• Docket Number: No. 20.,20.
• Citation: 107 A. 446
• Parties: GILLARD v. MANUFACTURERS' INS. CO. OF PHILADELPHIA, PA.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

107 A. 446

GILLARD

v. MANUFACTURERS' INS. CO. OF PHILADELPHIA, PA.

No. 20.

Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey.

June 20, 1919.

Syllabus by the Court.

Additional Syllabus by Editorial Staff.

Appeal from Supreme Court.

Action by Grace Gillard against the Manufacturers' Insurance Company of Philadelphia, Pa. From a judgment of the Supreme Court (104 Atl. 707) affirming a judgment of the district court for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Pomerehne & Laible and Jacob L. Newman, all of Newark, for appellant.

Arthur B. Seymour, of Orange, for appellee.

MINTURN, J. Andrew Wanzke, as a condition precedent to operating his jitney bus upon the streets of Newark, and for the purpose of obtaining a license from the municipal authorities for the purpose, filed with the chief fiscal officer of the city a policy of accident insurance issued by the defendant company in the sum of $5,000.

The policy was issued under the provisions of an act of the Legislature (P. L. 1916, p. 283) entitled "An act concerning autobusses, commonly called jitneys, and their operation in cities." The act provides inter alia that-Such a policy "shall provide for the payment of any final judgment recovered by any person on account of the ownership, maintenance and use of such autobus or any fault in respect thereto and shall be for the benefit of every person suffering loss, damage or injury."

The policy of insurance provided, inter alia:

"Notwithstanding anything herein contained to the contrary, this company will pay any final judgment within the limits of this policy as stipulated in item four, recovered by any person or persons, on account of the ownership, maintenance and use of the automobile described herein, or any fault in respect thereto; and it is further understood that this contract shall be for the benefit of every person suffering loss, damage or injury as described in this contract, or as described in the terms of an act entitled 'An act concerning autobusses, commonly called jitneys,' etc., already referred to."

In this situation the plaintiff was personally injured as a result of a collision between an automobile which she was driving along Elizabeth avenue, in Newark, with the jitney bus of the insured, and recovered a judgment against him for the resulting damage, in the Orange district court.

This suit was instituted against the defendant as insurer, upon the policy referred to, to recover the amount of the plaintiff's judgment against the insured.

Under our statute such a litigation may be prosecuted in the name of the third party for whose benefit the undertaking was given.

The district court having awarded the plaintiff judgment, and the Supreme Court having affirmed it, the defendant appeals.

In limine the constitutionality of the act of 1916 is assailed upon the ground that its purpose to impose a contractual obligation of a tripartite nature is not expressed in the title.

If, as has been tersely and happily expressed by Mr. Justice Garrison in an opinion in this court in Moore v. Burdett, 62 N. J. Law, 163, 40 Atl. 631, the title of a legislative act, under our constitutional mandate, is to serve the practical purpose of "a label not an index," and that the product of the act "may be as diverse as the object requires," it is difficult in this instance to discern a reasonable basis for the contention thus interposed. The Legislature was dealing with the operation of jitney busses upon city streets, and provided that as a condition precedent to their operation such a policy of insurance as that sub judice should be filed for the public protection, against...