E. D. Bedwell Coal Co. v. State Indus. Com
Decision Date | 08 March 1932 |
Docket Number | Case Number: 22216 |
Citation | 157 Okla. 227,1932 OK 182,11 P.2d 527 |
Parties | E. D. BEDWELL COAL CO. v. STATE INDUSTRIAL COM. et al. |
Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
¶0 1. Joint Adventures--Characteristics.
A joint adventure is a special combination of two or more persons where, in some specific venture, a profit is jointly sought without any partnership or corporate designation. By the special agreement the parties may limit their respective profits and provide which particular part of the expenses each should bear before participation in any profits.
2. Master and Servant--Workmen's Compensation -- Finding That Respondent Coal Companies Were Joint Adventurers Sustained.
Record examined, and held: Evidence sufficient to support the finding of the State Industrial Commission.
Original action in the Supreme Court by the E. D. Bedwell Coal Company for review of order and award of the State Industrial Commission in favor of James Piper. Affirmed.
Varner & Varner, for petitioner.
Hayes, Richardson, Shartel, Gilliland & Jordan, for respondents.
¶1 Presented herein is a petition to review an award made by the State Industrial Commission in favor of respondent James Piper and against petitioner, E. D. Bedwell Coal Company. The award as made was against the White Oak Coal Company, a corporation, and the E. D. Bedwell Coal Company. The White Oak Coal Company was by the award made primarily liable, and the E. D. Bedwell Coal Company was made secondarily liable.
¶2 Respondent moves to dismiss the petition upon the ground that the White Oak Coal Company is not made a party.
¶3 The record discloses that the White Oak Coal Company did not appear at the hearing before the State Industrial Commission and in no way contested the claim for compensation. The record further shows that it paid compensation for about 16 weeks after the injury, after which it became insolvent and all its property was sold by a trustee. It carried no compensation insurance, and, therefore, can in no way be affected by this proceeding. There is no attempt to show that claimant did not suffer accidental injuries from which he became permanently totally disabled, in that he was rendered practically blind. So, if in this proceeding the award should be set aside as to the E. D. Bedwell Coal Company, the White Oak Coal Company would not be affected one way or the other. It would have nothing with which to pay the award if it be affirmed. Nothing could be gained or lost by either party by having the White Oak Coal Company made a party to this proceeding.
¶4 The only question presented by the petition to review is whether or not the E. D. Bedwell Coal Company is liable. It is not necessary to have the White Oak Coal Company before this court to determine that question. It is not a necessary party and the motion to dismiss must be and is hereby denied.
¶5 The status of claimant and his relation to petitioner arises from a somewhat complicated transaction, shown by the record substantially as follows:
¶6 The petitioner was for a number of years prior to the origin of this claim the owner of the coal mining rights in certain land in Le Flore county. Petitioner had, either by mining itself or in connection with others, built up and established a widely advertised and well-known business and market, having a certain kind of coal known as "Panama Machine Cut Boom Loaded Coal," which was produced from the lands owned or leased by it and existed in and under adjoining land. It had leased some land in which it held the coal mining rights to a company known as the Buck Creek Mining Company, which had turned over or assigned its right to Messrs. Adams & Harper, who operated a mine thereunder for a while under the name of the Upper Vein Coal Company. After some time Harper got out of the enterprise and Adams operated the mine for a time as an individual. Thereafter a Mr. Hetherington came in as a partner, and they were operating under some kind of a contract with E. D. Bedwell Coal Company, dated May 5, 1928, the terms of which are not disclosed by the record. Thereafter Adams and Hetherington incorporated the White Oak Coal Company, and with the consent of the E. D. Bedwell Coal Company, assigned their contract to the White Oak Coal Company. Sometime prior to June 14, 1928, the White Oak Coal Company acquired some coal land adjoining that upon which the Buck Creek Mine was located. On June 14, 1928, the E. D. Bedwell Coal Company and the White Oak Coal Company entered into a written contract in which the E. D. Bedwell Company is referred to as a party of the first part and the White Oak Coal Company party of the second part. The material parts of said contract are:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Albina Engine and Machine Works, Inc. v. Abel
... ... The substantive law of the State of Oklahoma applies, the jurisdiction of the federal district court being ... E. D. Bedwell Coal Co. v. State Industrial Commission, 157 Okl. 227, 11 P.2d 527 (1932) ... ...
-
Moon v. Ervin
... ... TIM ERVIN, Employer, Cross-Appellant, and HOME LUMBER & COAL CO., a corporation; STATE INSURANCE FUND, Surety; MAY ERVIN and DR. EUGENE ... (Commercial Lumber ... Co. v. Nelson (Okla.) 72 P.2d 829; E. D. Bedwell ... Coal Co. v. State Ind. Comm. (Okla.) 157 Okla. 227, 11 ... P.2d ... ...
- Wertzberger v. Mcjunkin
-
Wertzberger v. McJunkin
... ... field of law than that of deciding whether or not a given ... state of facts constitutes a partnership or some other ... status, still we ... Perry v. Morrison, 118 Okl. 212, 247 P. 1004; E ... D. Bedwell Coal Co. v. State Industrial Comm., 157 Okl ... 227, 11 P.2d 527; ... ...