McKenna v. Montclair Police and Firemen's Pension Comm'n
| Decision Date | 11 October 1938 |
| Docket Number | No. 19.,19. |
| Parties | McKENNA v. MONTCLAIR POLICE AND FIREMEN'S PENSION COMMISSION et al. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Appeal from Court of Common Pleas, Essex County.
Action by Julia McKenna against the Montclair Police and Firemen's Pension Commission and George S. Courter, treasurer of the Town of Montclair, to recover accrued pension moneys alleged to be due plaintiff as the widow of John McKenna, a member of the Montclair Paid Firemen's Pension Fund at the time of his death. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
Argued May term, 1938, before BROGAN, C. J., and BODINE and HEHER, JJ.
Thomas Brunetto, of Newark, for plaintiff-appellant.
George S. Harris, of Montclair (Charles H. Hanks, of Montclair, on the brief), for defendants-appellees.
The plaintiff-appellant appeals from a judgment for the defendants entered upon a directed verdict. The appellant is the widow of John McKenna, deceased, who, at the time of his death, was a member in good standing of the Montclair Paid Firemen's Pension Fund.
It is alleged that on Sept. 28, 1917, the decedent died as a result of tuberculosis, contracted in the performance of his duty, and that under the then pertinent statute (Chap. 65, p. 114, P.L. 1905), his widow became entitled to a pension equal to one-half of the salary which he had received; that upon his death Mrs. McKenna demanded a pension which was refused by the pension fund committee; that suit was brought on May 3, 1919, to obtain the pension moneys due up to that time; that on Apr. 27, 1920, she received $815 in settlement, as she says, of the sum then due as pension; that suit was then discontinued. The case now before us was begun on Jan. 25, 1936, no action having been taken by the plaintiff since 1920, and demand is made for accrued pension moneys.
In the main, it is alleged by the answer and defenses that in 1920, a settlement was made and the appellant executed a general release relieving defendant of all further claims as far as appellant was concerned. On the sole ground that the release given the defendants by the appellant was efficacious and binding, the trial court directed verdict for defendants.
The appellant attacks this ruling on two grounds—first, that the release was void as against public policy, and, second, that in any event the validity of the release was a fact issue in the case and should have been submitted to the jury for determination. There is no merit in either contention.
As to the first—that the release was void because against public policy—the appellant merely cites cases which hold that the provisions of the pension statute should be construed liberally. Bederski v. Policemen's & Firemen's Pension Board of Newark, 134 A. 90, 4 N.J.Misc. 637, affirmed 104 N.J.L. 163, 138 A. 918, and Ghesquier v. Fire & Police Pension Fund of Paterson, 117 N.J.L. 327, 188 A. 502. These cases are neither applicable nor controlling.
It is also urged under this point that legislation providing for pension is comparable in character and purpose to workmen's compensation legislation and that under the Employers Liability Act of 1911 there could be no commutation of installment payment compensation until the Legislature authorized it in 1913. Therefore, it is argued that the appellant might not accept less than her full quota of pension. There is no parallel in the example cited. A competent tribunal, under the statute, always has control over the amount paid an injured workman in settlement of his claim, and by the statute (R.S. 34:15-22) acceptance of a lesser sum shall not be a bar to the recovery of the amount justly due; nor may there be commutation save by order of the court (R.S. 34:15-25). No such provisions as these are made part of the statute under which appellant makes claim for pension, supra, nor of the superseding Act...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Peter W. Kero, Inc. v. Terminal Const. Corp.
...Co., 125 N.J.L. 606, 17 A.2d 546 (Sup.Ct.1941), affirmed. 127 N.J.L. 230, 21 A.2d 735 (E. & A.1941); McKenna v. Montclair Police, etc., Commission, 121 N.J.L. 206, 1 A.2d 756 (Sup.Ct.1938); Kearney v. National Grain Yeast Corp., supra. Cf. Dunston Lithograph Co. v. Borgo, 84 N.J.L. 623, 87 ......
-
Hudson County Nat. Bank v. Southworth
...of complainant. The law is pretty clearly defined that a valid release of claim is an effective defense. McKenna v. Montclair Police, etc., Commission, 121 N.J.L. 206, 1 A.2d 756. It is fundamental that equity will not take jurisdiction of a suit where the courts of law furnish a full and a......
-
Bhatia v. Dischino
...releasor affecting his ability to understand the release, or any other equitable ground." Id. at 313; McKenna v. MontclairPolice & Firemen's Pension Comm'n, 1 A.2d 756, 757 (N.J. 1938) (same); see also Peter W. Kero v. Terminal Constr. Corp., 78 A.2d 814, 817 (N.J. 1951) (where a party is i......
-
Kearney v. Nat'l Grain Yeast Corp.
...binding signature of the plaintiff has been considered conclusive. Fivey v. Pennsylvania R. Co., supra; cf. McKenna v. Montclair Police &c. Comm., 121 N.J.L. 206, 209, 1 A.2d 756; Paruch v. Rasiewicz, 124 N.J.L. 356, 359, 12 A.2d 141, and R.S. True, in the instant case, plaintiff does not s......