Hutchison v. City of Hartford

• Decision Date: 16 July 1942
• Citation: 27 A.2d 803
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: HUTCHISON v. CITY OF HARTFORD et al.

27 A.2d 803

HUTCHISON

v. CITY OF HARTFORD et al.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

July 16, 1942.

Case Reserved from Superior Court, Hartford County; Quinlan, Judge.

Action by Raymond A. Hutchison, Conservator of the estate of Harold Hutchison, a mental incompetent, against the City of Hartford and others for a declaratory judgment determining the rights of plaintiff's ward as a beneficiary of the Firemen's Relief Fund of defendant city. Reserved by the Superior Court for the advice of the Supreme Court of Errors.

Superior Court advised to enter a declaratory judgment that plaintiff's ward is not entitled as beneficiary to payments from the fund.

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

Joseph P. Cooney and M. J. Blumenfeld, both of Hartford, for plaintiff.

Frank A. Murphy, of Hartford (Vincent W. Dennis and Harold Borden, both of Hartford, on the brief), for defendant.

AVERY, Judge.

The stipulated facts in this case show that Robert J. Hutchison was for many years a member of the Hartford Fire Department and on May 5, 1924, was retired, at his own request by reason of disability incurred in the service and thereafter received compensation from the firemen's relief fund at the rate of one-half of his salary until he died on January 18, 1930. His death was not caused by injuries received in the service of the fire department. On February 5, 1931, his widow was placed on the roll of the firemen's relief fund and received one-half the benefit payments which her husband had been receiving. These payments continued until her death on February 25, 1940. Robert J. Hutchison had a son, Harold Hutchison, who at the time of his father's death was more than sixteen years of age and "mentally incapacitated from earning a livelihood" and still is so incapacitated. His conservator, the plaintiff, made application to the board of fire commissioners for payment of benefits from the firemen's relief fund but no payments have been made and the plaintiff brought this suit on behalf of his ward to obtain a declaratory judgment to determine whether or not his ward is entitled as a beneficiary to the payments from the fund.

The right of the plaintiff's ward to compensation depends upon the laws which were in force affecting the fund upon the date of the retirement of Robert J. Hutchison, May 5, 1924. The firemen's relief fund was established by special law approved May 13, 1897, 12 Special Laws 1029. In its original form, no mention was made of benefits to anyone but a member. Widows and other dependents were excluded. The original law was repealed and the charter of the city of Hartford amended by a special law approved April 4, 1911, 16 Special Laws 88. Section 6 of this law is appended in the footnote.¹ By a law approved April 28, 1921, an amendment to the charter of Hartford, set forth in part in the footnote,² was passed concerning the firemen's relief fund. 18 Special Laws 491. The law approved April 28, 1921, did not contain any provision expressly repealing the law approved April 4, 1911.

It is the claim of the plaintiff that the law of 1921 should be liberally construed and that children should receive the same benefits in case of the death of a widow as in the case of her remarriage. The law of 1921 makes no provision for children in case of the death of a widow. The law of 1911 made provision for children under eighteen years of age in case of the death or remarriage of a widow, but made no provision for children over that age who are physically or mentally incapacitated from earning a livelihood. The plaintiff, who is now more than eighteen years of age, is not entitled to compensation under the express provisions of either law, even if both laws could be construed together.

However, "It is a familiar rule that when a later statute is exclusive,—that is, when it covers the whole subject to which it relates,—it will be held to repeal by implication all prior statutes on that matter, whether they are general or special." City of Hartford v. Hartford Theological Seminary, 66 Conn. 475, 484, 34 A. 483, 485; State ex rel. Reiley v. Chatfield, 71 Conn. 104, 112, 40 A. 922; Fair Haven & W. R. Co. v....