VALLENCOURT v. TOOHEY, 125 N.J.L. 365 (1940)

15 A.2d 609

LOUIS VALLENCOURT, RESPONDENT, v. JOHN J. TOOHEY, JR., COMMISSIONER OF LABOR, AND WILLIAM H. ALBRIGHT, STATE TREASURER, APPELLANTS.

Court of Errors and Appeals.Submitted May 31, 1940 —
Decided October 10, 1940.

N.J.S.A. 34:15-95 preserved the right to compensation payments under the one per cent. fund to those who had received
benefits from the fund; and that is so even though the initial payment may have been improper.

On mandamus.

Page 366

For the appellants, William J. Egan and Stephen J. Lorenz.

For the respondent, Emil Neblo.

The opinion of the court was delivered by BODINE, J.

This case is before us upon a moulded record. The respondent, who had received compensation payments under the statute (N.J.S.A. 34:15-1, et seq.) was placed on the so-called one per cent. fund more than two years after the last compensation payment had been made. After the decision in Ruffin v Albright, 121 N.J.L. 424; affirmed, 124 Id. 499, he was deprived of such benefits. This we deem improper, since N.J.S.A. 34:15-95 preserved such rights to those who had received benefits from the fund. Since it was well within the legislative powers to direct the distribution of the fund those designated must receive the benefits even though the initial payment may have been improper. The legislative command is as to those who had received benefits.

The case will be remanded to the Supreme Court to the end that a peremptory writ of mandamus issue.

For affirmance — THE CHANCELLOR, CHIEF JUSTICE, CASE, BODINE, DONGES, HEHER, PERSKIE, PORTER, DEAR, WELLS, WOLFSKEIL, RAFFERTY, HAGUE, JJ. 13.

For reversal — None.