{
  "id": 1562174,
  "name": "HAMILTON v. PRESTRIDGE",
  "name_abbreviation": "Hamilton v. Prestridge",
  "decision_date": "1943-12-17",
  "docket_number": "No. 4796",
  "first_page": "440",
  "last_page": "443",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "47 N.M. 440"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "144 P.2d 156"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.M.",
    "id": 8835,
    "name": "Supreme Court of New Mexico"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 52,
    "name_long": "New Mexico",
    "name": "N.M."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 306,
    "char_count": 5297,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.706,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.8591662004228935e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3654006469103025
    },
    "sha256": "e7e9432daec7fef9a69eef8700aa0e009af736a569eb90e445c13c1088207afe",
    "simhash": "1:a53e89d9db8d2e70",
    "word_count": 889
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:28:58.781619+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "SADLER, C. J., and MABRY, BICKLEY, and THREET, JJ., concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "HAMILTON v. PRESTRIDGE."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "BRICE, Justice.\nThis is a workman\u2019s compensation case, which seems to have been submitted to the trial court upon the admitted or undenied allegations in the complaint, and an oral stipulation of facts incorporated in the trial court\u2019s \u201cOrder of Dismissal\u201d from which this appeal was taken. The order is as follows:\n\u201cThis matter coming on for hearing upon the oral motion of the defendant to dismiss the Amended Complaint for Compensation, at which time the plaintiff was present in person and by her attorney, G. T. Watts, and the defendant being present in person and by his attorney, Lawson K. Stiff, and it appearing to the Court that the parties stipulated to certain facts to the effect that the minor, Marlene Bodry, at the time of the death of the workman was over the age of 18 years and married.\n\u201cThe Court therefore finds that such motion should be sustained and the Amended Complaint filed herein should be dismissed.\n\u201cIt is therefore ordered adjudged and decreed that the motion of the plaintiff be and the same is hereby sustained and the Amended Complaint is hereby dismissed at the cost of the plaintiff.\n\u201cTo all of which the attorney for the plaintiff duly excepts.\u201d\nFrom the admitted and undenied allegations of the complaint and the oral stipulation incorporated in the Court\u2019s order of dismissal, we find that the following are the facts of the case: The deceased, Bud Bodry, was at the time of his death an employee of the appellee at an average weekly wage of $23.60; that while working as such employee he was fatally injured; that such injury was by accident, and that it arose out of and was sustained in the course of his employment; that he died from the effects of such injury, on May 4, 1943. Marlene Bodry was the deceased\u2019s daughter and at the time of the death of her father was over the age of eighteen years and was married.\nThe question then is whether the appellant is entitled to compensation under the facts stated. The applicable statutes are the following sub-sections of Sec. 57-912 N.M.Sts.1941:\n\u201c(j) The following persons and they only shall be deemed dependents and entitled to compensation under the provisions of this act:\n\u201c(1) A child under eighteen (18) years of age or incapable of self support and unmarried, actually dependent upon the deceased.\n*****\n\u201cThe relation of dependency must exist at the time of the injury.\n*****\n\u201cQuestions as to who constitutes dependents and the extent of their dependency, shall be determined as of the date of the injury, and their right to any death benefit shall cease upon, the happening of any one of the following contingencies: ******\n\u201cII. Upon a child reaching the age of eighteen (18) years unless said child at such time is physically or mentally incapacitated from earnings or upon a dependent child becoming self supporting prior to attaining said age * * *\n******\n\u201c(k) As used in this section the term \u2018child\u2019 includes stepchildren, _ adopted children, posthumous children and acknowledged illegitimate children, but does not include married children unless dependent.\u201d\nFrom the opinion of the trial court, appearing in the record, it seems his conclusion that appellant was not entitled to recover was arrived at by a holding that the phrase \u201cbut does not include married children unless dependent\u201d appearing in subsection (k), supra, \u201cis nugatory and should not be held to be a modification of the language used in subsection (j)-l which bars a person from having benefits of this statute if married.\u201d We need not decide this question.\nConsidering these statutes together, we are of the opinion that when it is established that dependents are entitled to compensation, proof that the deceased workman had a child under the age of eighteen years sufficiently establishes its dependency, unless it further appears (II supra) that such child has become or is self-supporting. The merq proof, however, that a child over the age of eighteen years is the daughter of the deceased workman is not sufficient to establish her right to compensation. It must further appear from the facts that the claimant is incapable of self support and is actually dependent upon the deceased. The appellant alleged in her complaint that \u201cMarlene Bodry at the time of the death of the deceased was solely and wholly dependent upon Bud Bodry for her support, and at the time of his death she was his only dependent.\u201d These allegations, however, were denied in the answer, and were not proven; nor were these necessary facts included in the oral stipulation.\nIf a married child of a deceased workman would be under any circumstances entitled to compensation, a question we do not decide, the appellant has failed to establish her right thereto because, being over the age of eighteen years, she failed to prove that she was incapable of self support and was actually dependent upon her father.\nThere were not sufficient facts to establish dependency.\nThe judgment of the district court is affirmed, and it is so ordered.\nSADLER, C. J., and MABRY, BICKLEY, and THREET, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "BRICE, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "J. Benson Newell, of Las Cruces, for appellant.",
      "Hugh B. Woodward .and Lawson K. Stiff, both of Albuquerque, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "144 P.2d 156\nHAMILTON v. PRESTRIDGE.\nNo. 4796.\nSupreme Court of New Mexico.\nDec. 17, 1943.\nRehearing Denied Jan. 12, 1944.\nJ. Benson Newell, of Las Cruces, for appellant.\nHugh B. Woodward .and Lawson K. Stiff, both of Albuquerque, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0440-01",
  "first_page_order": 464,
  "last_page_order": 467
}