Wilder v. Russell Library Co.

• Decision Date: 12 December 1927
• Citation: 139 A. 644,107 Conn. 56
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: WILDER v. RUSSELL LIBRARY CO.

139 A. 644

107 Conn. 56

WILDER v. RUSSELL LIBRARY CO.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

December 12, 1927

Appeal from Superior Court, Middlesex County; Newell Jennings Judge.

Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Law by Harriet A. Wilder for compensation for the death of a decedent, claimant opposed by the Russell Library Company, employer. The compensation commissioner awarded compensation. On appeal to the superior court, judgment was rendered dismissing the appeal and affirming the award, and the employer appeals. No error.

Marvin J., dissenting.

Warren Maxwell and Allan E. Brosmith, both of Hartford, for appellant.

Ralph O. Wells, of Hartford, for appellee.

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

MALTBIE, J.

The commissioner having, on May 28, 1926, awarded compensation to the claimant as a dependent of the deceased, the respondent insurer, on June 2d, filed its appeal, and thereafter sought an extension, until June 30th, of the time within which it might file a motion for a correction of the finding and award. The commissioner granted an extension; on June 18th the respondent filed a somewhat lengthy motion to correct; and on July 2d the commissioner filed a detailed ruling upon that motion. On August 9th the respondent filed a supplemental motion to correct, and this the commissioner refused to act upon because it was filed too late. The trial court sustained the action of the commissioner in this regard. The extension granted by the commissioner authorized the filing of the motion of June 18th, but cannot be interpreted as authorizing the filing of further motions as often and at such times as the respondent might choose. We cannot find error on the part of the trial court in sustaining the commissioner's action in refusing to act upon the supplemental motion. Practice Book, p. 258, § 72; Atwood v. Connecticut Light & Power Co., 95 Conn. 669, 673, 112 A. 269; State v. Dobkin, 78 Conn. 642, 63 A. 349.

When the appeal came to trial in the superior court, it was of the opinion that the record of the case was not in such a condition that the issues were clearly presented or could be justly determined, and accordingly it remanded the case to the commissioner for further proceedings. Before he took any further action, however, his term of office expired, and, as there was then no statutory authority permitting him to do anything thereafter, the record could not be perfected. Upon motion for a rehearing, the court opened the judgment remanding the case to the commissioner, the appeal was again heard, and final judgment rendered. The appeal before us is from that judgment, and we must perforce determine it upon the rather unsatisfactory record before the trial court.

The commissioner's findings and his memorandum of decision made a part of it give a very brief summary of the salient facts in the case. A few additional facts, which the respondent sought in the original motion to correct to have incorporated in the finding, were undisputed, and we include them in our own statement of it, although they could not have affected the conclusion of the commissioner. Most of the other additional facts sought to be added either were not undisputed or were wholly immaterial. With the slight additions we have made, we are bound to take the facts as found by the commissioner and, upon that basis, to determine whether the trial court was right in adjudging the conclusion of the commissioner not to be unreasonable, illogical, or contrary to law.

These then, are the facts of the case as found: The decedent had been for some 8 years librarian at the library of the respondent employer, located in the city of Middletown. As such she was, under the supervision of its trustees, in full charge and direction of the library, having several assistants under her. She was very conscientious in her work, temperamentally overconscientious and zealous for the good of the library, working the number of hours required of her by the employer, and also working many more hours at home evenings on work connected with her library duties, in her desire to carry out her ideas and hopes for the betterment of the library in all its branches. She expended a great amount of effort in building up the library and making it more useful to the general public. Her position carried with it unusual responsibilities, causing her not only excessive labor, but excessive worries. During her first year she accomplished more for the library than in any subsequent year, but did not then show an adverse physical or mental reaction. In 1924--25 she was president of the State Library Association and also did considerable work at times for the various conventions of librarians held in Connecticut and nearby states, and this put an additional strain upon her. While this work was voluntary on her part and was not required by her position as librarian of the respondent, it was acquiesced in by the trustees and was all felt to be of benefit to the library as well as to its librarian, and she was urged and rather expected to contribute her share of time and work in arranging such conventions and attending them. The unusual efforts put forth by the decedent and the long hours spent by her in relation to her library work were all for the benefit of the library and known to it, and...