Lyle v. H.R. Lyle Cider & Vinegar Co.

• Decision Date: 09 July 1926
• Citation: 243 N.Y. 257,153 N.E. 67
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: LYLE v. H. R. LYLE CIDER & VINEGAR CO. et al.

243 N.Y. 257

153 N.E. 67

LYLE

v.H. R. LYLE CIDER & VINEGAR CO. et al.

Court of Appeals of New York.

July 9, 1926.

Proceeding under Workmen's Compensation Law by Vinnie M. Lyle, claimant, for the death of her husband, opposed by H. R. Lyle Cider & Vinegar Company and others. From a unanimous order of the Appellate Division (215 App. Div. 736, 212 N. Y. S. 860), reversing an award of the State Industrial Board, and dismissing the claim for compensation, claimant and the Board appeal.

Affirmed.

Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third department.

Ernest F. Fox, of Newark, for appellant Lyle.

Albert Ottinger, Atty. Gen. (E. C. Aiken, Deputy Atty. Gen., of counsel), for appellant State Industrial Board.

William B. Davis, and E. C. Sherwood, both of New York City, for respondents.

HISCOCK, C. J.

This appeal represents an effort to secure an award under the Workmen's Compensation Law (Consol. Laws, c. 67) in favor of the claimant on the theory that her injured husband was an employee, and also that the policy issued by the carrier covered him as an employer, and therefore insured against the accident suffered by him while engaged as such employer in the performance of work being carried on by the copartnership. The latter is the more important claim.

Claimant's husband, upon whom she was dependent within the provisions of the Compensation Law, was a member of a copartnership engaged in carrying on a business of limited proportions and while he was performing labors incidental to the purposes of the copartnershiphe was so injured that death resulted. No question is made but that, under the provisions of section 54, subd. 6, of the Workmen's Compensation Law, a policy may be taken out which will insure employers who perform labor ‘incidental to their occupations.’ This is a remedial and wise provison and, in accordance with wellestablished principles, we ought to construe it liberally to the end of effectuating if possible the purpose for which it was adopted. The trouble in this case is that all of the facts by which we must be guided oppose rather than support the claim that decedent was insured as an employer. If a policy is intended to cover employers within the permission of the statute, that purpose ought to be indicated by its terms. Whatever the intention of the parties may have been, the policy before us not only does not contain any provisions covering the employers, but by its terms it is unmistakably limited in its application to employees. In addition to this the findings of the Industrial Board, which made an award in favor of claimant and which are binding upon her now, are to the effect that decedent was injured while engaged as an employee and at work for his employer. Thus we are compelled to decide against the claim on this theory of insurance for an employer and are relegated to the question whether under the circumstances an award can be sustained because of injuries received by the decedent while engaged as an employee. Carrying this question farther, it becomes the one whether a copartner can become the employee of himself and his partners as employers, and we think that a negative answer must be made to this question. The...