Mayor v. Borst

• Decision Date: 14 September 1917
• Citation: 101 A. 1033,90 N.J.L. 454
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court
• Parties: MAYOR, ETC., OF JERSEY CITY, PROSECUTOR, v. KATHARINE LOVELL BORST, AS NEXT FRIEND, RESPONDENT

101 A. 1033

90 N.J.Law 454

MAYOR, ETC., OF JERSEY CITY

v. BORST.

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

Sept. 14, 1917.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Certiorari to Court of Common Pleas, Hudson County; Tennant, Judge.

Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act, by Katherine Lovell Borst, as next friend, of W. Hudson Lovell, deceased employé, to obtain compensation, opposed by Mayor, etc., of Jersey City, employer.Compensation was awarded, and the employer brings certiorari.Judgment awarding compensation affirmed.

Argued June term, 1917, before SWAYZE, BERGEN, and BLACK, JJ.

John Bentley, of Jersey City, for prosecutor.R. F. Jones, of Jersey City, for respondent.

BLACK, J.This is a workmen's compensation case.The certiorari was allowed to review the determination of Judge George G. Tennant, in the Hudson county common pleas.An award of $10 per week for 300 weeks was made, in that court, from May 3, 1914.The facts are not disputed.The point on review and for decision is a pure question of law, involving the correct construction of the supplement, approved March 27, 1913(P. L.1913, p. 230), to the Workmen's Compensation Act, which was approved April 4, 1911(P. L.1911, p. 134).The first section of that act provides:

Every employe "who shall be in the employ of the state, county, municipality * * * shall be compensated under and by virtue of section two to which this act is a supplement; provided, however, that no person receiving a salary greater than twelve hundred dollars per year, nor any person holding an elective office shall be entitled to compensation."

Section 2:

"When any payment shall be due under the provisions of this supplement or the act to which it is a supplement, the name of the injured employe, or in case of his death, the names of the persons to whom payment is to be made as his dependents, shall be carried upon the pay roll," etc.

It is conceded that the respondent would be entitled to compensation were it not for the proviso in the above supplement.The facts in brief are: W. Hudson Lovell, the deceased, was an employe of the mayor and aldermen of Jersey City as an assistant fire chief or assistant engineer, in the fire department.On May 3, 1914, while responding to a fire call or alarm he was killed in a collision.He was receiving pay at the rate of $2,850 per year.He left him surviving, an actual dependent, Helen Katharine Borst, a granddaughter.We think the judgment of the court of common pleas is founded upon the correct construction of the statute, and therefore must be affirmed.The reasoning that carries the mind forward to this conclusion may be briefly, indicated as follows:

The original Workmen's Compensation Act(P. L.1911, p. 134) applies to municipal corporations and their employes.Allen v. City of Millville, 87 N. J. Law, 356, 95 Atl. 130, affirmed88 N. J. Law, 693, 96 Atl. 1101.Paragraph 19 of the original act (P. L.1911, p. 142) provides for the payment of compensation in cases of death.It is significant, if not important, that the title of the supplement, supra(P. L.1913, p. 230), is identical in terms with the title of the original act, except "a further supplement to an act entitled."As stated, it is a supplement to the original act.Now the ordinary meaning of the word "supplement" doubtless is a supplying by addition of what is wanting.Railway Savings Institution v. Mayor, etc., of Railway, 53 N. J. Law, 51, 20 Atl. 756.It is a fair argument to say that the supplement applies only to employés of the class therein mentioned, who are injured.It does not apply to cases of death where dependents of employés are affected.This would seem to be clear in ...