100 N.H. 167 | N.H. | 1956
The issue here is whether the legal adoption of the dependent minor children by their stepfather terminates the obligation of the plaintiff insurance carrier to make payments for their benefit under our Workmen’s Compensation Law. RSA 281:22, provides for weekly payments to be made to the dependents of a deceased workman and in par. Ill states, “In case of remarriage of a widow who has dependent children the unpaid
While it is true as the plaintiff argues, that the statute in the Anderson case, supra, (Acts 1929, c. 172, s. 38) did not contain the precise words “dependent in fact” as does our statute, we fail to see the materiality of this difference. The plaintiff concedes that the minors involved here were dependent in fact upon the deceased at the time of injury and under the rationale of the Anderson decision and other authorities cited, this and not subsequent events determines their rights.
It is significant that our Legislature in RSA 281:22, while terminating payments to the dependent widow in certain circumstances as when she remarries (Id., 22 II, III; see also, s. 35) failed to place any similar restrictions on the rights of dependent children. See Colby v. Varney, 98 N. H. 99, 103. This is a strong indication that none were intended. State v. Wilton Railroad, 89 N. H. 59, 61; see also, Moore v. Dailey, 97 N. H. 278, 279. Since they wrere still dependent children at the time of the widow’s remarriage they were entitled to receive her share under section 22, supra.
In the case of Diamond v. Employers &c. Co., 97 N. H. 510, 512,
Finally, the plaintiff cites Clapp v. Brighi, 93 N. H. 431, as authority for the proposition that an adopted child bears the same relation to his adopting parents as a natural child so that the natural parents are freed of the duty of support and that, therefore, these adopted children are no longer dependents of their deceased natural father. The answer to this is that had the Legislature desired this result in compensation cases, it would have said so. It did nothing of the sort, but on the contrary without qualification expressly classified dependents as “children . . . dependent in fact upon the earnings of the employee at the time of the injury . ... ” RSA 281:2 VII (Emphasis supplied.) The defendant’s wards in this case fall squarely within this definition, and it follows that the order is
Judgment for the defendant.