Chambers v. Macon Wholesale Grocer Co.

• Decision Date: 19 April 1934
• Parties: Pearle Dee Chambers v. Macon Wholesale Grocer Company, Employer, and Casualty Reciprocal Exchange, Its Insurer, Appellants
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

70 S.W.2d 884

334 Mo. 1215

Pearle Dee Chambers v. Macon Wholesale Grocer Company, Employer, and Casualty Reciprocal Exchange, Its Insurer, Appellants

Supreme Court of Missouri

April 19, 1934

Appeal from Chariton Circuit Court; Hon. Paul Van Osdol Judge.

Reversed and remanded (with directions).

Franklin E. Reagan for appellants; Harvey T. Brock of counsel.

(1) The circuit court has no power or authority to make a finding of fact in a compensation case on appeal from a finding of fact by the Compensation Commission. Jackson v. Genl Metals, 43 S.W.2d 865; Waterman v. Chicago Bridge & Iron, 41 S.W.2d 575; State ex rel. May Dept. Stores v. Haid, 38 S.W.2d 44; DeMay v. Liberty Foundry, 37 S.W.2d 640; Hammack v. West Plains Lbr Co., 30 S.W.2d 650; Teague v. LaClede Christy Clay Prod. Co., 52 S.W.2d 880; Seifert v. Heil Packing Co., 52 S.W.2d 579; Dever v. Brown Shoe Co., 49 S.W.2d 638; Lekomitros v. Can Co., 46 S.W.2d 965; Jones v. Century Coal, 46 S.W.2d 196; Isaacson v. Central Coal, 44 S.W.2d 232; Leilich v. Chevrolet Motor Co., 40 S.W.2d 601; Beecham v. Greenlease Motor Co., 38 S.W.2d 535; Harbour v. Gardner, 38 S.W.2d 295; Wadley v. Employers' Lia., 37 S.W.2d 665; Glaze v. Hart, 36 S.W.2d 684; Waring v. Met. Life Ins. Co., 39 S.W.2d 418; Harbour v Gardner, 38 S.W.2d 295; State ex rel. May Dept. Stores v. Haid, 38 S.W.2d 44; Schmelzle v. Ste. Genevieve Lime, 37 S.W.2d 482; Cobb v. Standard Acc. Ins. Co., 31 S.W.2d 573; Hammack v. West Plains Lbr. Co., 30 S.W.2d 650; Kersey v. Conrad, 30 S.W.2d 167; Sec. 3342, R. S. 1929. (2) The finding of the circuit court that a partner can be both an employer and an employee under the Workmen's Compensation Law is erroneous. Sec. 3304 (a), R. S. 1929. (a) A partnership is not the same as a corporation and is not to be treated as a legal entity. Langstaff v. Lucas, 9 F.2d 693; Alsup v. Murfreesboro Bread & Ice Cream Co., 56 S.W.2d 746; Gebers v. Murfreesboro Laundry Co., 15 S.W.2d 737; Barlow v. Shawnee Inv. Co., 48 S.W.2d 35; R. S. 1929, sec. 3305(a); Ellis v. Ellis, 1 K. B. 330. (b) The intentions of the parties must be considered in determining whether a partnership exists. Massa v. Union Elec. L. & P. Co., 50 S.W.2d 714. (c) The existence of a partnership is a question of fact; and the commission's finding of fact is conclusive on appeal and to sustain it the courts will disregard unfavorable testimony when contradicted. McDonald v. Matney, 82 Mo. 358; Bevan v. Hill, 284 S.W. 174; Loveland v. Chapman, 267 S.W. 70; Fuerstenberg v. Kram, 249 S.W. 143; Tavacchi v. Garavelli, 52 S.W.2d 567; Buttinger v. Haid, 51 S.W.2d 1008; Meyer v. Adams, 50 S.W.2d 744; Goebel v. Mo. Candy Co., 50 S.W.2d 741; Caldwell v. J. A. Kreis & Sons, 50 S.W.2d 725; Elsas v. Montgomery Elevator Co., 50 S.W.2d 130; Dever v. Brown Shoe Co., 49 S.W.2d 638; Thurman v. Fleming-Young Coal Co., 49 S.W.2d 288; Perry v. J. A. Kreis & Sons, 49 S.W.2d 220; Schaefer v. Lowell-Krekeler Gro. Co., 49 S.W.2d 209; Biswell v. Railroad, 49 S.W.2d 203; Beck v. K. C. Pub. Serv. Co., 48 S.W.2d 213; Schraner v. Massman Const. Co., 48 S.W.2d 104; Barlow v. Shawnee Inv. Co., 48 S.W.2d 35; Fischer v. Stephens College, 47 S.W.2d 1101; Lekomitros v. Can Co., 46 S.W.2d 963; Pfitzinger to Use of Stotscky v. Shell Pipe Line Corporation, 46 S.W.2d 955; Jones v. Century Coal, 46 S.W.2d 196; Cunningham v. Management & Eng. Corp., 45 S.W.2d 899; Kostron v. Am. Packing, 45 S.W.2d 871; Simmons v. Miss. River Fuel Corp., 43 S.W.2d 868; Jackson v. Genl. Metals Refg. Co., 43 S.W.2d 865; Sanders v. Central Bldg. Materials, 43 S.W.2d 863; Shulte v. Grand Union Tea & Coffee, 43 S.W.2d 832; Conklin v. K. C. Pub. Serv. Co., 41 S.W.2d 608; Morris v. Dexter Mfg. Co., 40 S.W.2d 750; Waring v. Met. Life Ins. Co., 39 S.W.2d 418; McComoch v. Shapleigh Hdw. Co., 40 S.W.2d 728; Rue v. Eagle-Picher Lead Co., 38 S.W.2d 487; DeMoss v. Evens & Howard Fire Brick, 37 S.W.2d 961; DeMay v. Liberty Fdry., 37 S.W.2d 640; Gendron v. Dwight Chapin & Co., 37 S.W.2d 486; Payne v. Sullivan County, 36 S.W.2d 127; Bise v. Tarlton, 35 S.W.2d 993; Bricker v. Gille Mfg. Co., 35 S.W.2d 662; Miller v. St. Joseph Trans. Co., 32 S.W.2d 449; Cobb v. Standard Accident, 31 S.W.2d 573; Hammack v. West Plains Lbr. Co., 30 S.W.2d 650; Huelsmann v. Stute & Co., 28 S.W.2d 387; Stone v. Blackmer & Post, 27 S.W.2d 459; Wood v. Am. Coal & Ice Co., 25 S.W.2d 144; Rolens v. Keller Const. Co., 24 S.W.2d 1077; Kinder v. Hannibal Car Wheel, 18 S.W.2d 91; Hager v. Pulitzer Pub. Co., 17 S.W.2d 578; State ex rel. Brewen-Clark Syrup Co. v. Workmen's Comp. Comm., 8 S.W.2d 897; Crutcher v. Curtis-Robertson, 52 S.W.2d 1019; Probst v. St. Louis Basket & Box, 52 S.W.2d 501; Wall v. Lemmons, Inc., 51 S.W.2d 194; Meyer v. Adams, 50 S.W.2d 744; Goebel v. Mo. Candy Co., 50 S.W.2d 725; Caldwell v. J. A. Kreis & Sons, 50 S.W.2d 725; Cottingham v. General Matl. Co., 50 S.W.2d 661; Thurman v. Fleming-Young Coal Co., 49 S.W.2d 288; Wetter v. Mechanics Iron Works, 49 S.W.2d 236; Smith v. International Shoe Co., 49 S.W.2d 233; Perry v. J. A. Kreis & Sons, 49 S.W.2d 220; Schaefer v. Lowell-Krekeler Gro. Co., 49 S.W.2d 209; Sweeny v. Sweeny Tire Stores, 49 S.W.2d 205; Biswell v. Railroad, 49 S.W.2d 203; Vollett v. Fed. Brilliant Sign Co., 49 S.W.2d 201; Beck v. K. C. Pub. Serv. Co., 48 S.W.2d 213; Pfitzinger to Use of Stotscky v. Shell Pipe Line Corp., 46 S.W.2d 955; Jones v. Century Coal Co., 46 S.W.2d 196; Cunningham v. Management & Eng. Corp., 45 S.W.2d 899; Simmons v. Miss. River Fuel Corp., 43 S.W.2d 868; Jackson v. Genl. Metals Refg. Co., 43 S.W.2d 865; Sanders v. Central Bldg. Material Co., 43 S.W.2d 863; Shulte v. Grand Union Tea & Coffee, 43 S.W.2d 832; Travelers Ins. Co. v. Davis, 42 S.W.2d 945; Lamkins v. Copper-Clad Mall. Rge. Corp., 42 S.W.2d 941; Price v. K. C. Pub. Serv. Co., 42 S.W.2d 51; Morris v. Dexter Mfg. Co., 40 S.W.2d 750; Leilich v. Chevrolet Motor Co., 40 S.W.2d 601; Rue v. Eagle-Picher Lead Co., 38 S.W.2d 487; Bise v. Tarlton, 35 S.W.2d 993; Bricker v. Gille Mfg. Co., 35 S.W.2d 662; Wheat v. Whitney & Sons, 34 S.W.2d 158; Mettig v. Lehr Const. Co., 32 S.W.2d 121; Cobb v. Standard Acc. Ins. Co., 31 S.W.2d 573; Hammack v. West Plains Lbr. Co., 30 S.W.2d 650; Huelsmann v. Stute & Co., 28 S.W.2d 387; Brewer v. Ash Grove Lime & P. Co., 25 S.W.2d 1086; Betz v. Columbia Tel. Co., 24 S.W.2d 224; Cotter v. Valentine Coal Co., 14 S.W.2d 660. (d) W. G. Chambers was a member of a partnership, and was an employer, and, therefore, could not be an employee. Sec. 3304(a), R. S. 1929. (e) States whose definition or employer is similar to that of Missouri. Sec. 3304(a), R. S. 1929; Sec. 2, L. 1923, Ch. 66, New York; Lyle v. H. R. Lyle Cider & Vinegar Co., 153 N.E. 67; Munter v. Ideal Peerless Laundry Co., 241 N.Y.S. 411; Millers' Indemnity Underwriters v. Patten, 250 S.W. 154; Southern Surety Co. v. Eppler, 26 S.W.2d 697; Berger v. Fidelity Union Cas. Co., 293 S.W. 235; McMillen v. Industrial Comm., 13 Ohio App. 310. (f) States whose statutory definition of employer is silent as to the term "partnership." Cooper v. Indiana Acc. Comm., 171 P. 684; Industrial Comm. of Colo. v. Bracken, 262 P. 521; Wallins Creek Lbr. Co. v. Blanton, 16 S.W.2d 465; Gebers v. Murfreesboro Laundry Co., 15 S.W.2d 737; Rockefeller v. Industrial Comm. of Utah, 197 P. 1042; Gen. L. Cal. 1915, 2144a, secs. 13, 14; Baldwin's Ann. Code of Tenn., sec. 3369. (g) States that have by statute made a working member of a partnership an employee. Gallie v. Detroit Auto Accessory Co., 195 N.W. 667; Ohio Drilling Co. v. State Industrial Comm., 207 P. 314; Dixon Casing Crew v. State Industrial Comm., 235 P. 605; Deatherage & Renfro v. Storey, 13 P.2d 124; Swalley v. Department of Labor & Industries, 282 P. 905; Peterson v. Department of Labor & Industries in Washington, 295 P. 172; Ellis v. Joseph Ellis & Co., 1 K. B. 328; Whelan v. Great Northern Fishing Co., Ltd., 100 Law T. 913; In re W. A. Montgomery & Son, 169 N.E. 899.

George N. Davis, Waldo Edwards and Chas. W. Shelton for respondent.

(1) Workmen's Compensation legislation is based on the broad economic theory that death or injury is an incident of industrial activity and production and that compensation therefor is properly chargeable as part of such activity and production. Wangler Boiler & Sheet Metal Works Co. v Industrial Comm., 287 Ill. 188, 122 N.E. 366; 1 Schneider Workmen's Compensation Law, sec. 1; Employers' Liability Assur. Assn. v. Industrial Comm., 179 Cal. 432, 177 P. 273; Stasmas v. Rock Island Coal Mining Co., 15 A. L. R. 576, 80 Okla. 221, 195 P. 762. (2) Such acts are to be liberally construed, Revised Statutes 1929. Ransdell v. Industrial Shoe Co., 44 S.W.2d 1; Sawtell v. Stern Bros. Co., 44 S.W.2d 265; Carrigan v. Western Radio Co., 44 S.W.2d 245; Barlow v. Shawnee Inv. Co., 48 S.W.2d 35. (3) The mere fact that a partnership may exist and the party injured is interested in the partnership does not prevent the injured party from recovering compensation as an employee. Ohio Drilling Co. v. State Industrial Comm., 86 Okla. 139, 207 P. 314; Ardmore Paint & Oil Products Co. v. Industrial Comm., 109 Okla. 81, 234 P. 582; Williams Lumber Co. v. Williams, 104 Okla. 213, 231 P. 210; Smith v. Horlock, 1913 W. C. & Ins. 441, 109 L. T. N. S. 196, 7 B. W. C. C. 638, 15 A. L. R. 1295; Dixon Casing Crew v. State Industrial Comm., 108 Okla. 221, 235 P. 605; Twin State Oil Co. v. Shipley, 113 Okla. 3, 236 P. 578; Knox v. Shoush & Knox, 120 Okla. 45, 250 P. 783; Johnson v. Industrial Accident Comm., 198 Cal. 234, 244 P. 321; Sharp v. Carswell, S. C. 391, 47 Scot L. R. 335, 3 B. W. C. C. 552; Fischer v. Stephens College, 47 S.W.2d 1101; Barlow v. Shawnee Inv. Co., 48 S.W.2d 35; Ex parte W. T. Smith Lumber Co., 206 Ala. 485, 90 So. 807. (4) Where an insurance company with full knowledge of all the facts scheduled a...