349 Mass. 767

June 8, 1965

Decree affirmed. This is a petition under G. L. c. 31, Section 47E, by employees of the Cambridge Welfare Department seeking to be paid in accordance with successive welfare compensation plans promulgated by the Welfare Compensation Board of the Commonwealth. They appeal from a final decree entered upon a case stated adjudging G. L. c. 31, Sections 47C, 47D and 47E, and the welfare compensation plans not applicable to the respondent city. Prior to the enactment of G. L. c. 31, Sections 47C and 47D (St. 1941, c. 402), and thereafter until 1961, the employees of the Cambridge Welfare Department were subject to the Civil Service law and were compensated in accordance with salary classification plans approved by the Civil Service Commission. General Laws c. 31, Section 47C, was designed to afford a merit system to welfare employees in municipalities not otherwise subject to G. L. c. 31. This did not include Cambridge. The addition to c. 31 of the General Laws of Section 47E, by St. 1951, c. 537, provided for step rate increases for persons "holding positions referred to in section forty-seven C." Neither this addition, nor a 1961 amendment to it which abolished the necessity for local acceptance, concerned the Cambridge welfare employees. In the absence of clear and precise legislation requiring a contrary result, we conclude that Sections 47C, 47D and 47E of c. 31 of the General Laws were not applicable to Cambridge and there was no error. Albernaz v. Fall River, 346 Mass. 336, 341.


349 Mass. 767

June 9, 1965

Decree affirmed. On undisputed evidence the judge found that notice of an accident on the insured's premises was given to the insurer by the insured forty days after the latter had knowledge of the occurrence. The notice provisions of the liability policy issued by the insurer to the insured were the same as those in Depot Cafe Inc. v. Century Indem. Co. 321 Mass. 220, 221. The judge ruled that the insured failed to comply with the requirement that notice be given "as soon as practicable." He dismissed the bill brought by the plaintiffs under G. L. c. 175, Sections 112, 113, and c. 214, Section 3 (10), to reach and apply the policy in payment of their judgments against the insured. There was

Page 768

no error. All of the issues raised by the plaintiffs are disposed of by what was said in Segal v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. 337 Mass. 185, McCarthy v. Rendle, 230 Mass. 35, Potter v. Great Am. Indem. Co. 316 Mass. 155, and in Depot Cafe Inc. v. Century Indem. Co. 321 Mass. 220.


[Note 1] Andrew M. Brackman, husband of Beatrice, the injured plaintiff.