Birmingham Post Co. v. Sturgeon
Decision Date | 01 June 1933 |
Docket Number | 6 Div. 349. |
Citation | 227 Ala. 162,149 So. 74 |
Parties | BIRMINGHAM POST CO. v. STURGEON. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied June 22, 1933.
Certiorari to Circuit Court, Jefferson County; Romaine Boyd, Judge.
Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Mary Sturgeon, as administratrix of the estate of John Sturgeon, deceased against the Birmingham Post Company, to recover compensation as widow of deceased employee. Judgment awarding compensation, and the employer brings certiorari.
Reversed and rendered.
In compensation case, where issue was whether relation of master and servant existed between newspaper publisher and newsboy omission from stipulated facts that any district manager supervised newsboys justified conclusion that there was none (Code 1923, §§ 7585, 7596).
The stipulation of facts is as follows:
reserved the right to dispense with the services of Sturgeon at any time they became unsatisfactory for any reason.
"Seven: Surviving the decedent are his widow, the plaintiff, and a son over the age of 18 years, who is not mentally or physically incapacitated from earning a livelihood and who did not derive his support from the earning of decedent."
Only two questions are presented to the court for decision:
W. H. Sadler, Jr., and Grady W. Patterson, both of Birmingham, for appellant.
Chas. W. Greer and Thos. Seay, both of Birmingham, for appellee.
The sole question here for determination is whether or not the arrangement between John Sturgeon, the deceased "newsboy," and The Birmingham Post created the relation of employer and employee within our Workmen's Compensation Statute. Sections 7534-7597, Code 1923.
The cause was tried upon an agreed statement of facts which appears in the report of the case. The purpose of such an agreement was of course to facilitate the hearing, save the time, trouble, and expense of examination of witnesses, and at the same time present to the court the essential facts upon which the decision is to turn. Such agreements are not to be given any strained and unnatural interpretation, but are to be reasonably construed in the light of the language used and the object to be obtained.
These preliminary remarks are appropriate, in view of our conclusion that the insistence on appellee's part that the words in the agreement, "permitted" and "required," should be given so wide a significance as to indicate the relationship of master and servant, is untenable.
Considering the connection in which they are found, these words were simply used, in the sense that, under the particular arrangement between defendant and Sturgeon, the latter was under a duty or obligation to do certain things, and in a like sense was at liberty or permitted to do other things. The agreement presumably sets forth all pertinent facts and contains no indication of a delivery of papers to any regular subscribers, but, on the contrary, we think its language inconsistent with any such theory, and will be here so considered.
1 Honnold on Workmen's Compensation, § 66.
There is no statement in any of our cases (Ex parte W. T. Smith Lbr. Co., 206 Ala. 485, 90 So. 807; Sloss-Sheffield Steel & Iron Co. v. Crim, 219 Ala. 148, 121 So. 408; Martin v. Republic Steel Co. [Ala. Sup.] 146 So 276, 279) indicating a contrary rule,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hayes v. Bd. Of Trustees Of Elon Coll.
...Spivey & McGill v. Nixon. 163 Okl. 278, 21 P.2d 1049; Knudson v. Jackson, 191 Iowa 947, 183 N.W. 391; Birmingham Post Co. v. Sturgeon, 227 Ala. 162, 149 So. 74; McDonald v. City of New Haven, 94 Conn. 403, 109 A. 176, 10 A.L.R. 193; Mann v. City of Lynchburg, 129 Va. 453, 454, 106 S.E. 371;......
-
Ware v. Timmons
...those for whom he was rendering service was that of an employee or of an independent contractor'" (quoting Birmingham Post Co. v. Sturgeon, 227 Ala. 162, 167, 149 So. 74, 78 (1933))). The right-of-control test does not resolve the question whether a servant who is in fact a servant, and not......
-
Skidmore v. Haggard
......405,. 158 N.W. 36; Carter Publications v. Davis, 68 S.W.2d. 640; Post Publ. Co. v. Schickling, 154 N.E. 751;. Tyler v. MacFadden Newspapers Corp., 163 A. 79;. ... Zajic v. Johnson, 253 N.W. 77; Oklahoma Publ. Co. v. Greenlee, 300 P. 684; Birmingham Post Co. v. Sturgeon, 149 So. 74; Abate v. Hirdes, 121 So. 775; Bernat v. Star-Chronicle ......
-
Hayes v. Board of Trustees of Elon College
......278, 21 P.2d 1049;. Knudson v. Jackson, 191 Iowa 947, 183 N.W. 391;. Birmingham Post Co. v. Sturgeon, 227 Ala. 162, 149. So. 74; McDonald [224 N.C. 20] v. City of New. ......