Culpepper v. White, 24792.

• Decision Date: 28 February 1936
• Docket Number: No. 24792.,24792.
• Parties: CULPEPPER. v. WHITE.
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

52 Ga.App. 740

184 S.E. 349

CULPEPPER.

v.WHITE.

No. 24792.

Court of Appeals of Georgia,

Division No. 2.

Feb. 28, 1936.

Syllabus by Editorial Staff.

Error from Superior Court, Gordon County; C. C. Pittman, Judge.

Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Felix White, claimant, opposed by C. E. Culpepper, employer. To review a judgment of the superior court affirming an award of the Department of Industrial Relations in favor of the claimant, the employer brings error.

Reversed.

Henderson L. Lanham, of Rome, for plaintiff in error.

W. B. Mebane, of Rome, for defendant in error.

Syllabus Opinion by the Court.

STEPHENS, Judge.

1. Where on a tract of land used exclusively for farming purposes there is being constructed, for the purpose of preventing an overflow of the waters of a creek upon the land, a canal or ditch through a wooded portion of the land and along a line which subtends an arc made by a curve in the creek, and the work will render the land more suitable for cultivation, the work is incidental to the business of farming and is a part of the preparation of the land for farming purposes. An employee of the owner of the land, who was engaged in digging the ditch, notwithstanding he had not been employed to do any other work on the farm, but was employed solely for the purpose of assisting in the digging of the ditch, was a farm laborer, and for an injury caused to his hand while engaged in moving a stump in the course of his employment he was not entitled to compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act. Ga.L.1920, pp. 167, 177, § 15, as amended by Laws 1925, p. 283, § 1.

2. It appearing conclusively and without dispute, from the evidence adduced before the director of the Department of Industrial Relations, that the plaintiff was not entitled to compensation, that tribunal erred in awarding compensation. The superior court erred in not sustaining the employer's appeal.

Judgment reversed.

JENKINS, P. J., and SUTTON, J., concur.