Taylor v. St. Paul's Universalist Church

• Decision Date: 30 April 1929
• Parties: TAYLOR v. ST. PAUL'S UNIVERSALIST CHURCH ET AL.
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court

145 A. 887

109 Conn. 178

TAYLOR v. ST. PAUL'S UNIVERSALIST CHURCH ET AL.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

April 30, 1929

Appeal from Superior Court, New Haven County; John Richards Booth Judge.

Proceedings under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Henry B. Taylor opposed by St. Paul's Universalist Church and others. On the death of claimant, Frances B. Taylor, executrix of his estate, was substituted. An award of the compensation commissioner in defendants' favor was affirmed and appeal therefrom dismissed by the superior court, and complainant appeals. Error, and case remanded, with directions.

See also 140 A. 124.

Undisputed fact that payment to minister for conducting tourists was for incidental expenses only could be added to finding in compensation proceedings.

Appeal by the plaintiff from a finding and award of the compensation commissioner for the Third district in favor of the defendants, taken to the superior court in New Haven county and tried to the court, Simpson, J.; judgment rendered dismissing the appeal and affirming the award, from which the plaintiff appealed; cause remanded with directions, and again tried in the superior court, John Richards Booth, J judgment rendered dismissing the appeal and affirming the award, from which the plaintiff again appealed. Error, and superior court directed to sustain the appeal and remand the case to the commissioner for an award in favor of the plaintiff.

Hinman and Banks, JJ., dissenting.

George E. Beers, of New Haven, and Irving G. Smith, of Meriden, for appellant.

Thomas R. Robinson and Daniel L. O'Neill, both of New Haven, for appellees.

Argued before WHEELER, C.J., and MALTBIE, HAINES, HINMAN, and BANKS, JJ.

HAINES, J.

The plaintiff's assignments of error are based in part upon the refusal of the court to add certain claimed facts to each of several paragraphs of the finding, but no claim is made that the facts found are not supported by evidence. While some of the additions the plaintiff seeks to make to the finding are properly supported by evidence, others are inferences, only, from other facts. Most of them do not come within the classification of undisputed or admitted facts which would permit us to add them to the finding. One exception to this is a fact which is amply supported by the evidence, with nothing in the evidence to contradict it. It is testified to by all the parties who could have known anything about it, and is apparently not inconsistent with the finding as made. There is some doubt as to the real significance of the finding that $250 was paid the decedent by the Temple Tours, and we think this doubtful meaning also justifies the addition of the fact we refer to. Practice Book, p. 309, § 11(2). It is found that the decedent, in going abroad as a conductor of a party of tourists for the Temple Tours " received for his services, his ordinary traveling and living expenses, and an allowance of $250 in cash." The evidence clearly establishes the fact that this sum of $250 was not paid by way of compensation, but was an allowance to cover incidental expenses which the trip made necessary. This fact should be added to the finding. Upon similar grounds we add paragraphs 2 and 4 of the requested finding. The uncertainty in the scope and implications of paragraph 4 of the finding are largely removed by the added facts.

This brings us to that portion of the appeal which refers to conclusions reached by the trier. It appears from the finding that the plaintiff's decedent was employed by the defendant church as its minister, beginning his service in December, 1918, and continuing in that employment when the present action was instituted. The record shows that he died in May, 1928, and the plaintiff was duly admitted as a party plaintiff in behalf of his estate. The amended finding also shows that his contract of employment contemplated, and that it was understood between the decedent and the trustees of the church, that he was to go abroad during the summer and upon his return was to deliver lectures on subjects relating to these trips. We attach little importance to the characterization of this understanding or agreement made by the finding, as a " privilege." It may have been a privilege or a duty to go, or a privilege to go only at that time of the year, but in any event it was obviously contemplated by the trustees of the church that the contract of employment should include the procuring of material for these lectures. It was also part of the same agreement that the decedent would not deliver any of such lectures except under the auspices of the church, and that the proceeds of the lectures were to go into the treasury of the church. Several trips were made before 1924 under this arrangement. It is clear that the commissioner looked upon the trip abroad as a mere personal privilege, something in the nature of a concession or gratuity, and not a part of the contract of employment; but it is difficult to see how lectures upon subjects relating to these trips could have been given, if the contract had not also provided for making the trips.

In reality the decedent was under a dual employment during the period of this trip--to the Temple Tours, and to his church--when he was engaged in procuring material for his lectures and in their preparation. When so employed upon the lectures, he must be held to have been in the course of his employment for the church. When he was engaged upon work in aid of the Temple Tours, he was in the course of his employment with them.

As we interpret the decedent's contract with the church, it contemplated that the decedent would travel with the Temple Tours fulfilling his service to them, and as circumstances permitted, during this period, secure material for his lectures and work upon their preparation. Work upon his lectures was incidental to his main work as pastor of his church.

The amended finding makes it clear that he received no compensation, as such, from the Temple Tours for his services, but only his expenses. This service cannot be held to have in any way affected his legal relation as an employee of the church during this period. His employment by the church was not interrupted. He was still under salary paid by the church, and we deem it altogether immaterial whether he obtained his passage to and from Europe by paying cash or by rendering service.

The defendants claimed that he was an employee of the Temple Tours during the entire period of the trip; but one may hold the legal relation of employee to more than one employer at the same time. Even if the decedent were held to have been an employee of the Temple Tours at the time of an injury to the decedent, it does not follow that he was not still in the employ of the defendant church, nor that recovery could not be had from the latter for injuries arising in the course of and out of the employment by the church in the preparation of the lectures. Bradbury's Workmen's Compensation (3d Ed.) p. 127(14); Honnold, Workmen's Compensation, vol. 1, p. 126, § 29; Beaudy v. Owners S. S. Raphael, 4 Butterworth, C. C. 6, affirmed [1911] App. Cas. 413, 4 Butterworth, C. C. 307.

On the established facts, it must be held that throughout the trip the decedent was in the course of his employment by the church when he was engaged in...