Atlanta Million Co-op. Cab Co. v. Wilson-Acomb

• Decision Date: 11 October 1963
• Docket Number: WILSON-ACOMB,No. 40200,No. 2,40200,2
• Parties: ATLANTA MILLION COOPERATIVE CAB CO. v. James
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

Page 437

133 S.E.2d 437

108 Ga.App. 465

ATLANTA MILLION COOPERATIVE CAB CO. v. James WILSON-ACOMB.

No. 40200.

Court of Appeals of Georgia, Division No. 2.

Oct. 11, 1963.

Sheats, Parker & Webb, John Tye Ferguson, Atlanta, for plaintiff in error.

William F. Woods, Atlanta, for defendant in error.

Syllabus Opinion by the Court

FRANKUM, Judge.

1. Where the evidence in this workmen's compensation case showed that the defendant corporation was, at the time of the injury complained of, operating a taxicab business under a franchise issued by the mayor and council of the City of Atlanta subject to the provisions of § 55.35 of the Code of General Ordinances of the City of Atlanta, which provides that no taxicabs operated within the city shall be opererated by any person other than the owner or a duly authorized employee thereof; and where the evidence further showed that the claimant employee, at the time of the injury, was operating a taxicab owned by the defendant corporation, a finding was demanded, under the doctrine announced in Diamond Cab Co. v. Adams, 91 Ga.App. 220, 85 S.E.2d 451, that the relationship of employer and employee existed between the claimant and the defendant taxicab company. See Malone v. Gary, 98 Ga.App. 699, 106 S.E.2d 320. The motion of the plaintiff in error that these cases be overruled is denied.

2. There was ample evidence to authorize the finding of the deputy director that the defendant employer had regularly in its employ 10 employees and that it operated a business for gain or profit. The fact that due to the manner of operation no dividend had been paid to the stockholders of the corporation and that the retained earnings of the corporation were of a nominal amount was not material in the determination of the question of whether the business was operated for gain or profit. The cases of Hall v. Georgia Milk Prod. Conf., 61 Ga.App. 676, 7 S.E.2d 330, and Flint Elec. Mem. Corp. v. Posey, 78 Ga.App. 597, 51 S.E.2d 869, cited and relied on by the plaintiff in error, involved corporations organized under special Acts, and no such Act applicable to the incorporation of a cooperative association for the transportation of persons for hire has been called to our attnetion.

3. Where the evidence for the employee showed that his net earnings, after paying to the cab company its portion of the gross receipts taken from the operation of the cab, amounted to about $10 per day, and that he regularly worked six days per week,...