Angell v. White Eagle Oil & Refining Co.
| Decision Date | 19 November 1926 |
| Docket Number | No. 25575.,25575. |
| Citation | 210 N.W. 1004,169 Minn. 183 |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
| Parties | ANGELL v. WHITE EAGLE OIL & REFINING CO. et al. |
Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Synneva Angell, claimant, for the death of Carl Angell, her husband, opposed by the White Eagle Oil & Refining Company, employer. To review a finding of the Industrial Commission, denying compensation, the claimant brings certiorari. Reversed, with directions.
Perl W. Mabey and H. O. Chommie, both of Thief River Falls, and Hugo V. Koch, of St. Paul, for relator.
Ernest E. Watson, of Minneapolis, for respondents.
While delivering gasoline and oil for the White Eagle Oil & Refining Company, Carl Angell was accidentally injured. The injuries caused his death, and his widow and children seek to recover compensation from the oil company and its insurer. There was a hearing before a referee, who found that Angell was an employee of the oil company and sustained an injury arising out of and in the course of his employment which caused his death. On appeal, the Industrial Commission found that Angell was not an employee of the oil company and denied compensation. The widow sued out a writ of certiorari to review the decision of the commission.
Whether Angell was an employee of the oil company at the time of his injury is the only question to be determined. The answer depends largely on the construction of a written contract with the oil company, to which Angell was a party. The contract names the oil company as the party of the first part and Angell & Ness as party of the second part, and the following provisions thereof are pertinent: The first party agrees to "employ" the second party as "agent and salesman" at Thief River Falls, under the terms and conditions set forth in the contract. The second party is to receive and unload the first party's products shipped to Thief River Falls and sell and deliver the greatest possible amount thereof at prices named by the first party. All moneys received must be deposited in a bank designated by the first party. Sales are to be made for cash only and must be reported every Wednesday and Saturday on forms furnished by the first party, the reports to be accompanied by remittances. On the last day of each month, the second party is to furnish the first party with an inventory of all merchandise on hand at that time. The second party is to furnish the necessary teams, motive power, drivers, and extra labor required to unload and deliver the merchandise shipped and to pay the expense of making sales, deliveries, and collections. Liability insurance on all trucks and cars used in conducting the business, and "workmen's compensation insurance" on all persons employed by the second party, must be carried; the insurance to be secured by the first party and charged to the second party at cost. The second party must furnish a surety bond for the faithful performance of the contract and to protect the first party against the loss of money or merchandise received. In consideration of the fulfillment of the contract, the first party agrees to pay the second party certain specified sums per gallon for kerosene, gasoline, and lubricating oils sold. For "any overt act deemed by the first party to be detrimental to its interest, the second party may be removed from said agency without notice," and, at the option of either party the contract may be terminated upon 30 days' notice to the other party.
In rendering its decision, the commission said that it appeared that Angell and Ness were copartners and entered into the contract and carried on the business as copartners until the partnership was dissolved by Angell's death; that the nature of the relation between the partners and the oil company was the test of liability; and that the question was one of law. This is the correct view of the situation, and we proceed to the consideration of the contract. In doing so, we take into account the circumstances under which it was made and the manner in which the parties dealt with each other thereafter.
The evidence shows that Angell and Ness furnished the capital of the copartnership in equal shares and divided the profits equally. Ness had charge of the oil company's station at Thief River Falls and Angell made sales and deliveries in the surrounding territory. The oil station and all the equipment used in conducting the business was owned by the oil company, except the chassis of two trucks and some office furniture. These were owned by Angell & Ness. The oil company paid the taxes, insurance premiums, freight charges, water rates, and furnished light and heat. During the busy season Angell & Ness employed and paid an extra man to drive a truck or work around the station. Save as provided in the contract, they were free to discharge their duties in their own way. The amount of their compensation depended wholly on their success in disposing of the oil company's products.
Respondents contend that, to entitle Angell's dependents to compensation, the existence of the relation of employer and employee must be established (Erickson v. Kircher [Minn.] 209 N. W. 644), and that Angell was not an employee but an independent contractor.
The term "employer," as used in the act, means...
To continue reading
Request your trial