Maurello v. Maurello

• Decision Date: 01 April 1932
• Citation: 161 A. 844
• Parties: MAURELLO v. MAURELLO.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

161 A. 844

MAURELLO

v. MAURELLO.

New Jersey Department of Labor, Workmen's Compensation Bureau.

April 1, 1932.

Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Netti Maurello, employee, against James Z. Maurello, employer.

Petition dismissed.

Harry Joelson, of Paterson, for petitioner.

Harley, Cox & Walburg, of Newark (Arthur F. Mead, of Newark, of counsel), for respondent.

JOHN J. STAHL, Deputy Commissioner.

Upon the pleading, the testimony adduced, and the stipulations of the attorneys made in open court, the following facts appear: On January 7, 1931, Netti Maurello, the petitioner, was engaged as a buyer and saleslady in Jimmy's Department Store, located at 67 Main street, Paterson, N. J., which store was owned and operated by the respondent, James Z. Maurello, her husband. She received for her services a salary of $30 per week. On January 7, 1931, at or about 5 p. m., while in the performance of her duties as a saleslady, she fell from a platform, injuring her right leg. It is for this injury that the present compensation proceeding is brought.

The question to be determined is whether or not the petitioner, being the wife of the respondent, is entitled to recover compensation from him under the Workmen's Compensation Act (Comp. St. Supp. § **236—1 et seq.).

It is a cardinal principle that a Workmen's Conmpensation Act, being a remedial statute, must be construed liberally in order to carry out its beneficent purposes; however, in order for one to recover compensation, it must first appear that there is a contract of employment, a legal and enforceable contract.

In the case of Boyle v. Van Splinter, 101 N. J. Law, 89, 127 A. 257, Chief Justice Gummere, speaking for the Court of Errors and Appeals, stated: "It is only in those cases where the contract of hiring is valid that the Workmen's Compensation Act is applicable."

Plainly, a wife working for her husband does not come within the purview of the Workmen's Compensation Act. Obviously, one cannot be employed without a contract of hire. Employment presupposes a contractual relationship. A married woman cannot make a contract of employment, either express or implied, with her husband.

It is elementary in law that a married woman owes her services to her husband, while there is a corresponding duty upon her husband to afford her proper maintenance. Surely, a married woman acting as a housewife could not entertain a claim for compensation against her husband if she was injured in the...