Ainsworth v. Long-Bell Lumber Co., LONG-BELL
| Decision Date | 17 March 1958 |
| Docket Number | No. 40703,LONG-BELL,40703 |
| Citation | 101 So.2d 100,233 Miss. 38 |
| Parties | Mrs. Roberta AINSWORTH v.LUMBER COMPANY et al. |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
J. P. Abston, Meridian, for appellant.
Watkins & Eager, Shelby Rogers, Jackson, for appellees.
Claude Ainsworth was killed on October 11, 1955, on the premises of Long-Bell Lumber Company in Clarke County when a log fell on him while he was unloading logs from a truck. A claim for death benefits under the Mississippi Workmen's Compensation Act, Code 1942, Sec. 6998-01 et seq. was filed on behalf of the widow and minor child of the deceased against Long-Bell Lumber Company and its insurance carrier, Fidelity and Casualty Company of New York. The claim was predicated upon the ground that at the time of the death of the deceased he was an employee of Long-Bell Lumber Company and that his death arose out of and in the course of his employment.
The attorney-referee heard the claim and denied it, finding from the evidence that at the time of the death of the deceased he was an independent contractor and not an employee of Long-Bell Lumber Company within the contemplation of the Mississippi Workmen's Compensation Act. This action of the attorney-referee was affirmed by the Commission and by the circuit court. Hence this appeal is prosecuted on behalf of the claimants.
It is here contended on behalf of the claimants that there is not substantial evidence to support the findings and orders of the attorney-referee and the Commission. The facts in this case in all material respects are similar to the facts in the case of Stovall's Estate v. A. Deweese Lumber Co., 222 Miss. 833, 77 So.2d 291, and under the principles there enunciated, we are compelled to reject and unsound the aforesaid contention of the claimants.
It is further contended on behalf of the claimants that the Commission erred in refusing to reopen the case for the introduction of further evidence. This was a matter within the discretion of the Commission under its Procedural Rule No. 7, and the record, in our opinion, discloses no abuse of such discretion.
We are accordingly of the opinion that the judgment of the court below should be and it is affirmed.
Affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Boyd v. Crosby Lumber & Mfg. Co.
...Co., 222 Miss. 854, 77 So.2d 708 (1955); E. L. Bruce Co. v. Hampton, 225 Miss. 242, 83 So.2d 101 (1955); Ainsworth v. Long-Bell Lumber Co., 233 Miss. 38, 101 So.2d 100 (1958); Employers Liability Ins. Co. of Wisconsin v. Haltom, 235 Miss. 74, 108 So.2d 29 In other logging cases it has appli......
-
Wells-Lamont Corp. v. Watkins
...100 C.J.S. Workmen's Compensation Sec. 596, pp. 843-844; Barfield v. Bill Morris Tank Co., Okl., 311 P.2d 235; Ainsworth v. Long-Bell Lumber Co., 233 Miss. 38, 101 So.2d 100; Druey v. Ingalls Shipbuilding Corp., 237 Miss. 277, 114 So.2d In the instant case, we are of the opinion that the at......
-
Crump v. Fields, 43337
...is definitely supported by the cases of West Estate v. Southern Bell Telephone Company, 228 Miss. 890, 90 So.2d 1, and Ainsworth v. Long-Bell Lumber Company, 101 So.2d 100.' Again, this Court in Wells-Lamont Corporation v. Watkins, 247 Miss. 379, 151 So.2d 600 (1963), in announcing the gene......
-
Smith v. Container General Corp.
...West's Estate v. Southern Bell Telephone and Telegraph Company, 228 Miss. 890, 90 So.2d 1, 2 (1956); Ainsworth v. Long-Bell Lumber Company, 233 Miss. 38, 101 So.2d 100 (1958); Druey v. Ingalls Shipbuilding Corporation, 237 Miss. 277, 114 So.2d 772, 774 A review of the record reveals that th......