Harris v. Egan.

CourtSupreme Court of Connecticut
Writing for the CourtELLIS, Judge.
Citation60 A.2d 922,135 Conn. 102
PartiesHARRIS et al. v. EGAN.
Decision Date21 July 1948

135 Conn. 102
60 A.2d 922

HARRIS et al.
v.
EGAN.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

July 21, 1948.


Appeal from Superior Court, New Haven County; Alcorn, Judge.

Appeal by Sidney Harris and others from the assessment by John J. Egan, administrator, Unemployment Compensation Act, of contributions under such act, brought to the superior court and tried to the court. Judgment for defendant dismissing the appeal and plaintiffs appeal.

No error.

Charles Albom, of New Haven (Nelson Harris, of New Haven, on the brief), for appellants.

Harry Silverstone, Asst. Atty. Gen. (William L. Hadden, Atty. Gen., on the brief), for appellee.

James F. Rosen, of New Haven, amicus curiae.

60 A.2d 922

Before MALTBIE, C. J., and BROWN, JENNINGS, ELLS and DICKENSON, JJ.

ELLIS, Judge.

60 A.2d 923

The defendant administrator decided that the plaintiffs, although not previously subject to the Unemployment Compensation Act, became subject to it because they acquired substantially all of the assets, organization, trade or business of another employer who at the time of such acquisition was subject to the act. The plaintiffs appealed to the Superior Court under the provisions of § 1345e(f) of the 1939 Cumulative Supplement to the General Statutes (amended, Sup.1947, § 1403i); the court sustained the administrator and the plaintiffs have appealed.

The facts are not in dispute. In January, 1946, the plaintiffs opened a feed and grain business in a warehouse in Wallingford. They were not subject to the Unemployment Compensation Act. Raymond Delaney was engaged in a similar business under the name of ‘Delaneys' and was subject to the act. On April 22, 1946, the plaintiffs agreed with Delaney to buy the land and buildings where he operated his business, all the machinery and equipment located therein, all his automotive equipment, his saleable merchandise on hand on May 5, the day prior to the date set for the consummation of the sale, and the good will of the business. The sale was completed on May 6, and the plaintiffs paid $27,800, of which $27,000 was for the real estate and $800 for the merchandise. Delaney retained only his accounts receivable and his accounts payable, each item amounting to about $15,000, his business records and minor items of office equipment. The plaintiffs moved their own merchandise, of the value of about $10,000, into the property acquired from Delaney and have conducted business there since the date of the sale. Delaney removed his business records and office equipment and thereafter did not engage in business except for a period of about five months, during which he made sales from railroad cars. The name ‘Delaneys' was discontinued. The plaintiffs employed one former employee of Delaney for about a week in order that they might learn to operate a machine which was included in the sale.

The single issue is whether the plaintiffs became subject to assessment under § 710f of the 1941 Supplement to the General Statutes. The pertinent portion is as follows: ‘Every employer who was subject to this chapter immediately prior to July 1, 1941, shall continue to be so subject. An employer not previously subject to this chapter shall become subject to this chapter as follows: * * * (2) an employer who acquires substantially all of the assets, organization, trade or business of another employer who at the time of such acquisition was subject to this chapter shall immediately become subject to this chapter’. The basis of the plaintiffs' appeal is the claim that § 710f is not applicable in this case. They contend (1) that it was not designed to apply to a transfer when the transferee does not assume the employer relationship to the employees of the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
23 practice notes
  • State v. Payne, No. 15395
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • May 6, 1997
    ...of the statute indicates a clear legislative intent of separability. State v. Sul, 146 Conn. 78, 89, 147 A.2d 686 [1958]; Harris v. Egan, 135 Conn. 102, 105, 60 A.2d 922 [1948]." State v. Dennis, supra, 150 Conn. at 248, 188 A.2d 65. The legislative history of § 53-21 supports the conc......
  • Furber v. Administrator, Unemployment Compensation Act
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • March 7, 1973
    ...Unemployment Compensation Act should be construed liberally in favor of beneficiaries in order to effectuate its purpose; Harris v. Egan, 135 Conn. 102, 105-106, 60 A.2d 922; Reger v. Administrator, 132 Conn. 647, 650, 46 A.2d 844, 845; is not to say that it should be construed unrealistica......
  • Wozniak v. Town of Colchester, KNLCV136016629S
    • United States
    • Superior Court of Connecticut
    • January 9, 2018
    ...the disjunctive " or" between the parts of the statute indicates a clear legislative intent of separability); Harris v. Egan, 135 Conn. 102, 105, 60 A.2d 922 (1948) (same). In this case, a LOMR for the Plaintiffs’ property might require scientific data, technical data or both. It ......
  • Bennett v. Hix, Nos. 10536
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of West Virginia
    • December 15, 1953
    ...690, 59 S.E.2d 664; Maine Unemployment Comp. Page 119 Comm. v. Androscoggin Junior, Inc., 137 Me. 154, 16 A.2d 252; Harris v. Egan, 135 Conn. 102, 60 A.2d 922, 4 A.L.R.2d 717. An examination of the unemployment compensation law shows that it has exclusionary provisions which deny [139 W.Va.......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
23 cases
  • State v. Payne, No. 15395
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • May 6, 1997
    ...of the statute indicates a clear legislative intent of separability. State v. Sul, 146 Conn. 78, 89, 147 A.2d 686 [1958]; Harris v. Egan, 135 Conn. 102, 105, 60 A.2d 922 [1948]." State v. Dennis, supra, 150 Conn. at 248, 188 A.2d 65. The legislative history of § 53-21 supports the conc......
  • Furber v. Administrator, Unemployment Compensation Act
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • March 7, 1973
    ...Unemployment Compensation Act should be construed liberally in favor of beneficiaries in order to effectuate its purpose; Harris v. Egan, 135 Conn. 102, 105-106, 60 A.2d 922; Reger v. Administrator, 132 Conn. 647, 650, 46 A.2d 844, 845; is not to say that it should be construed unrealistica......
  • Wozniak v. Town of Colchester, KNLCV136016629S
    • United States
    • Superior Court of Connecticut
    • January 9, 2018
    ...the disjunctive " or" between the parts of the statute indicates a clear legislative intent of separability); Harris v. Egan, 135 Conn. 102, 105, 60 A.2d 922 (1948) (same). In this case, a LOMR for the Plaintiffs’ property might require scientific data, technical data or both. It ......
  • Bennett v. Hix, Nos. 10536
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of West Virginia
    • December 15, 1953
    ...690, 59 S.E.2d 664; Maine Unemployment Comp. Page 119 Comm. v. Androscoggin Junior, Inc., 137 Me. 154, 16 A.2d 252; Harris v. Egan, 135 Conn. 102, 60 A.2d 922, 4 A.L.R.2d 717. An examination of the unemployment compensation law shows that it has exclusionary provisions which deny [139 W.Va.......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT