State to Use of Holt v. Try, Inc.

• Decision Date: 10 June 1959
• Docket Number: No. 267,267
• Parties: , 72 A.L.R.2d 1232 STATE of Maryland, To the Use of Rosa Lee HOLT, etc., et al. v. TRY, INC.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

Page 270

220 Md. 270

152 A.2d 126, 72 A.L.R.2d 1232

STATE of Maryland, To the Use of Rosa Lee HOLT, etc., et al. v. TRY, INC.

No. 267.

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

June 10, 1959.

Harry M. Sachs, Jr., Baltimore (Sachs & Sachs, Baltimore, on the brief), for appellants.

Charles C. W. Atwater, Baltimore (Walter C. Mylander, Jr., Baltimore, on the brief), for appellee.

Before BRUNE, C. J., and HENDERSON, HAMMOND, PRESCOTT and HORNEY, JJ.

PRESCOTT, Judge.

This appeal comes to us on a stipulated statement of the case and an order of the trial court under the provisions of Rule 826g. The sole question presented, a narrow one, is:

'May the illegitimate children of a deceased father recover under the provisions of the Code (1957), Article 67 [Lord Campbell's Act] for the wrongful death of their putative father where the mother of such decedent is living and is a use-plaintiff in the same proceeding to recover for such alleged wrongful death?'

The appellants contend that the question should be answered in the affirmative, arguing that a reading of Section 4 of said Article 67, together with the title when it was amended in 1937, and Code (1957), Article 1, Section 16, shows a legislative intent to include within the provisions of said Section 4 illegitimate children of a father who suffers death as the result of the wrongful act, neglect or default of another, even when such father has surviving him a parent, wife or legitimate child.

Section 4 of Article 67 reads, in part, as follows:

'Every such action shall be for the benefit of the wife, husband, parent and child of the person whose death shall have been so caused OR IF THERE BE NO SUCH PERSON OR PERSONS ENTITLED, THEN ANY PERSON RELATED TO THE DECEASED BY BLOOD OR MARRIAGE, WHO, AS A MATTER OF FACT, WAS WHOLLY DEPENDENT UPON THE PERSON WHOSE DEATH SHALL HAVE BEEN SO CAUSED. EVERY SUCH ACTION ¹ shall be brought by and in the name of the State of Maryland for the use of the person OR PERSONS ¹ entitled to damages; 'parent' shall include the mother of an illegitimate child whose death shall have been so caused; 'child' shall include an illegitimate child whenever the person whose death is so caused is the mother of such child; ² and in every such action the jury may give such damages as they may think proportioned to the injury resulting from such death to the parties respectively for whom and for whose benefit such action shall be brought, * * *.'

The history of this Act was outlined by us in the recent case of McKeon v. State, 211 Md. 437, 442, 127 A.2d 635.

The Section 4 was amended by Chapter 38 of the laws of 1937 and its preamble read:

'An act to repeal and re-enact with amendments Section 2 of Article 67 * * *, enlarging the class for whose benefit an action for wrongful death may be brought by extending * * * to an illegitimate child the right to recover for the death of his mother and, in certain cases, of his father.' (Italics supplied.)

Code (1957), Article 1, Section 16 [enacted by the legislature in 1937], provides:

'The word child or its equivalent shall be construed to include any illegitimate child, except in matters of inheritance, descent or distribution of real and personal property, unless such a construction would be unreasonable.'

We stated in the McKeon case, supra [211 Md. 437, 127 A.2d 638]: 'The primary and fundamental purposes in construing and interpreting a statute are to ascertain, and to carry out, the true intention of the law. The object of all rules, canons of construction and maxims is to act as aids and guides in discovering the real legislative intent.' We think the action of the legislature in 1937 made their intention crystal clear with reference to the subject under discussion. The italicized words, 'and, in certain cases, of his father' in the preamble to chapter 38 of the Acts of 1937 were placed there because in the body of the Act, as originally introduced, there was a provision that the word 'child' should include an illegitimate child whenever the person whose death 'is so caused' is the ...