S. & W. Const. Co. v. Bugge
| Decision Date | 24 May 1943 |
| Docket Number | 35360. |
| Citation | 194 Miss. 822,13 So.2d 645 |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
| Parties | S. & W. CONST. CO. v. BUGGE. |
Jackson Young & Friend, of Jackson, for appellants.
J Ed Franklin and Lamar F. Easterling, both of Jackson, for appellee.
The principal defendants, partners doing business as the S. & W. Construction Company, the appellants here, were the contractors in the construction of the ordnance plant, or a part thereof, located about four or five miles from the Town of Flora, in Hinds County. Ellis, the other defendant, was employed by the contractors as cost clerk. His duties were to obtain daily, within the grounds of the plant beginning at 8 o'clock each morning, the detailed data of the cost of doing the work on what was known as Bag Loading Line No. 2 and for the entry of the details, he was furnished suitable blanks. When the data for each of these were fully obtained, Ellis would then go in the afternoon to a small office on the reservation to which he had access and would there complete his report for the day, including the appropriate compilations, and would then take the papers or documents to the main office in the Town of Flora and there file them, which would be about 5 o'clock in the afternoon.
After he had filed the completed report and the accompanying papers at the main office, the duties of Ellis for that day would be at an end and until his return to the plant for the resumption of his work on the following morning at 8 o'clock. Ellis had his own automobile which he used in going to his work in the morning and in departing therefrom in the afternoon. He lived in an adjoining county, and generally went to his home to spend the night, but sometimes he stopped over for the night at the neighboring City of Jackson. His employers had no obligatory interest in, or control over, the means or manner by which he arrived at the plant each morning, nor by which he departed from his work in the afternoon. So far as his employers were legally concerned he could have walked, ridden a horse, or used the public busses. They paid no part of the expenses of the operation of his automobile.
On Saturday afternoon, November 8, 1941, when Ellis had completed his work of obtaining the detailed data of the day, he went to the small office on the grounds which he had been customarily using for completing his compilations but found that it had been moved. He then proceeded to the main office in the Town of Flora, expecting to complete his papers at that office, but on arrival there found that the main office had also been moved, but he did find there one Hurt who was Ellis' superior in this work, and Hurt told Ellis to take the reports and papers home with him and there complete the compilations and that he should file them at the main office on his return to his work at the plant on the following Monday morning at 8 o'clock, Hurt informing Ellis at the same time that the main office would be open on the plant grounds when he arrived there at 8 o'clock on Monday morning.
Ellis thereupon took the papers with him, completed the compilations at his...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Adams v. Cinemark USA, Inc., 2001-CA-01305-SCT.
...Colotta v. Phillips, 226 Miss. 870, 875, 85 So.2d 574, 577 (1956). Evaluating this point, this Court in S. & W. Const. Co. v. Bugge, 194 Miss. 822, 13 So.2d 645 (1943), In such cases as last mentioned the rule to be applied is found in Primos v. Gulfport Laundry & Cleaning Co., 157 Miss. 77......
-
Anderson v. Gobea
...on the way to work and had money which he had collected the previous day and was to turn in to his employer; S. & W. Construction Co. v. Bugge, 194 Miss. 822, 13 So.2d 645 (1943), where the employee was a clerk who had, pursuant to the directions of his employer, taken home papers to work o......
-
Mississippi Power & Light Co. v. Laney
...Co. (1940), 337 Pa. 242, 10 A.2d 411; Larkins v. Utah Copper Co. et al. (Oregon 1942), 127 P.2d 354; S. & W. Construction Co. v. Bugge (1943), 194 Miss. 822, 13 So.2d 645, 146 A.L.R. 1190; Humes v. Young (1954), 219 Miss. 417, 69 So.2d 245; Huddy Cyclopedia of Automobile Law, 9th Ed., Vols.......
-
Lovett Motor Co. v. Walley
...of Bodie D. Palmer to Ollie Palmer was nothing more than a passing remark or a collateral incident. S. & W. Construction Co. v. Bugge, 194 Miss. 822, 13 So.2d 645, 146 A.L.R. 1190. The testimony of the witness Ollie Palmer is insufficient in our opinion to constitute a contradiction of the ......