(1) That the plaintiff was employed as an assistant manager and accountant of a large hardware store (with stock valued at not less than 100,000 pesos) and also supervised two rice mills for the same owner or employer during the critical three months period prior to April 10, 1942, and while so engaged earned a salary of 150 pesos per month. Also during this period he received the additional sum of 40 pesos per month from what he described as 'side line work' as an accountant in the store of another.
(2) During this three months period the plaintiff employed and paid the salaries of a housekeeper and a housemaid.
The second fact is perhaps more significant than the first. Manifestly, if the plaintiff was able to employ and pay the salaries of a housekeeper and a housemaid he was not dependent upon his son.
Plaintiff testified in his deposition that he last saw his son in June of 1941 when the son was attending the University of the Philippines and that his son was then dependent upon him. Plaintiff does not testify and there is no evidence to show that the son ever contributed to the plaintiff's support.
It appears that the plaintiff was at all times when the son was in the military service an assistant manager and accountant of a sizeable store and at the same time supervisor of certain rice mills and was in complete charge of the store and the rice mills during the critical period with which we are now concerned and saw to it that all employes at both places, five or six in the store and four in the rice mills were regularly paid when the plaintiff was himself entitled to substantial compensation for his services. It would seem that if plaintiff did not regularly receive his compensation it was a matter of his own choice.
Upon the whole record it appears that there is no factual basis for plaintiff's claim of dependency. Fulinara v. United States, supra; Leyerly v. United States, 10 Cir., 162 F.2d 79.
The plaintiff may not invoke Philippine law, which gives a parent a right to his minor son's earnings (as of April 10, 1942 plaintiff's son was 18 years and 7 months of age) since the question of dependency is one of Federal, not State or Territorial law. Wissner v. Wissner, 338 U.S. 655, 70 S. Ct. 398, 94 L. Ed. 424; Pack v. United States, 9 Cir., 176 F.2d 770.
The commonly accepted meaning of the word 'dependent' connotes one who looks to another for support in whole or in part. It means one who is in fact dependent; one who relies on another for the reasonable necessities of life. The words 'dependent' and 'dependency' run like a thread through the fabric of our law, in our tax laws, in our workmen's compensation acts, federal employers' liability acts, domestic relations, insurance, wills, death by wrongful act parent and child, selective service act. It would serve no useful purpose to mention all uses of the terms in our statutes and our law. The cases interpreting the terms are legion and are in general agreement.
The plaintiff has failed to show that he was a dependent father at the time of his son's death.
Counsel for defendant will present for settlement findings of fact, conclusions of law and a judgment form dismissing the complaint.
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.