Creighton v. Snipes

Decision Date18 December 1946
Docket Number670
Citation40 S.E.2d 612,227 N.C. 90
PartiesCREIGHTON v. SNIPES et al.
CourtNorth Carolina Supreme Court

Claim for compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act. G.S. s 97-1 et seq.

The pertinent facts are as follows:

1. The Dixie Lumber Company is a partnership, composed of Wade R. Snipes, F. R. Snipes, Sr., and F. R. Snipes, Jr. Wade E Snipes was, at the time the claimant was injured, the manager of the partnership. He also owned two sawmills which he contends were operated by him individually.

2. The Fidelity & Casualty Company is the insurance carrier for the Dixie Lumber Company. Farm Bureau Mutual Automobile Insurance Company is carrier for Wade E. Snipes individually.

3. In July, 1944, Alex Creighton, the claimant, was employed by Wade E. Snipes to saw lumber at a sawmill located on the yard of Dixie Lumber Company. Creighton's wages were 90 cents an hour. He was not informed whether he was employed to work for Snipes individually or for the Dixie Lumber Company. Dixie Lumber Company paid his wages. Snipes testified the sawmill was being used by the Dixie Lumber Company under a rental agreement. The sawing on the yards of Dixie Lumber Company was finished about 7 August, 1944. Thereafter, Alex Creighton was employed to make certain repairs to the sawmill, and to move it to a new location. His wages for this work were to continue at 90 cents an hour. The work not only involved repairs to the sawmill, but required the building of certain bridges and clearing a road to the new site. The timber to be sawed belonged to Dixie Lumber Company. Creighton was to operate the mill on a rental basis after it was moved and put in operation.

4. On 12 August, 1944, while engaged in work in connection with the moving of the sawmill, the claimant was seriously injured.

5 W. O. Willard was foreman of Dixie Lumber Company. The repairs to the sawmill, the selection of the new site and all other work in connection with its removal to the new location, was supervised in detail by the foreman of the Dixie Lumber Company. Dixie Lumber Company furnished the material necessary to repair the sawmill, the lumber to build the bridges and the trucks to move the mill. Creighton was directed by the foreman of the Lumber Company to purchase certain items needed in the repair of the sawmill and to have them charged to the Dixie Lumber Company. The partnership also furnished some of its regular employees to assist in building the bridges and in moving the sawmill.

Wade E. Snipes testified: 'I actually run and manage the business, to my best judgment for the partnership. I actually run my own business for myself. The Dixie Lumber Company pays Willard * * * this was an interlocking proposition benefitting myself and benefitting my company. ' The evidence also tends to show that the foreman of the Dixie Lumber Company and Snipes exercised supervision of the lumber plant and the sawmill.

6. There was evidence tending to show that all wages paid to Creighton and other workers at the sawmill were charged to Wade E. Snipes individually, on the books of the partnership. It is admitted, however, Creighton knew nothing of this arrangement. There is no evidence tending to show that material furnished for the repair of the sawmill by the Dixie Lumber Company, or the lumber used in the construction of the bridges, was charged to Snipes, individually. The foreman of Dixie Lumber Company, Mr. Willard, testified: 'I didn't know when I took instructions from Mr. Wade Snipes as to whether he was giving instructions for himself, the Dixie Lumber Company, or what-not. He's the man that signed the checks and paid me. * * * I didn't know anything about the bookkeeping and things like that.'

The North Carolina Industrial Commission found that the claimant was an employee of Wade E. Snipes, F. R. Snipes, Sr., and F R. Snipes, Jr., trading as Dixie Lumber Company, at the time of his injury, and that the injury arose out of and in the course of his employment. Award to claimant for compensation was made. Defendant, Dixie Lumber...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Whitted v. Palmer-bee Co
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • January 30, 1948
    ...are conclusive on this appeal. Ordinarily this is true where the facts found are supported by any competent evidence, Creighton v. Snipes, 227 N.C. 90, 40 S.E.2d 612; Rewis v. New York Life Ins. Co., 226 N.C. 325, 38 S.E.2d 97; Hegler v. Cannon Mills Co., 224 N.C. 669, 31 S.E.2d 918; Kearns......
  • Whitted v. Palmer-Bee Co.
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • January 30, 1948
    ... ... Ordinarily this is true where the facts found are supported ... by any competent evidence, Creighton v. Snipes, 227 ... N.C. 90, 40 S.E.2d 612; Rewis v. New York Life Ins ... Co., 226 N.C. 325, 38 S.E.2d 97; Hegler v. Cannon ... Mills Co., ... ...
  • Cooper v. Colonial Ice Co.
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • March 2, 1949
    ...of individual cases. Perley v. Ballinger Paving Co., supra; Bell v. Williamston Lumber Co., 227 N.C. 173, 41 S.E.2d 281; Creighton v. Snipes, 227 N.C. 90, 40 S.E.2d 612; Smith v. Paper Co., supra; Hayes v. Board of Trustees Elon College, 224, N.C. 11, 29 S.E.2d 137; Beach v. McLean, supra; ......
  • Lee v. Carolina Upholstery Co.
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • December 18, 1946
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT