Fieber And Reilly v. Entwistle
| Citation | 157 N.E. 106,86 Ind.App. 297 |
| Decision Date | 17 June 1927 |
| Docket Number | 12,866 |
| Parties | FIEBER AND REILLY v. ENTWISTLE |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Indiana |
From Industrial Board of Indiana.
Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act by John E. Entwistle for compensation for injury received while employed by the appellants, Fieber and Reilly. From an award for claimant the employers appeal.
Affirmed.
Samuel D. Miller, Frank C. Dailey, William H. Thompson, Albert L Rabb, Thomas D. Stevenson, Perry E. O'Neal and Sidney S Miller, for appellants.
White & Wright, for appellee.
This is an appeal from an award of the Industrial Board giving compensation to appellee for the loss of an eye. Appellants contend that appellee was not an employee, but an independent contractor, and that his injury did not arise out of and in due course of his employment.
The evidence in this case clearly shows that appellants are engaged in a general real estate and rental business; that in the course of such business, they keep in repair and in shape for living the properties of their clients; that they do not render this service gratuitously, but are doing it for profit; that, for five or six years, appellee, who is a carpenter repair man, had done their repair work for them and, for that purpose, had gone to their office daily for work, and, by custom, the practice of appellants' rental manager was to make notes of complaints from tenants relative to leaky roofs, leaky weather-boarding, etc., and to give these slips to appellee each morning when he called at their office; that appellee would then go to the address showing on the slip and inspect the defect, get the needed material and make the repairs, for which service he was paid for his time at the rate of seventy-five cents per hour, and was reimbursed for the material he had paid for; that on the morning of December 24, 1925, he called at appellants' office according to custom and was given a slip reading "617 E. Wabash some weather boarding," and he drove out on East Wabash street, and in the 600 block, while looking for the house, a man came out of a double house and asked appellee if he had come to repair weather-boarding, and on being informed by appellee that such was his mission, this man remarked that a lady was ill there and he was glad it was to be fixed; that appellee saw on this house a "For Rent" card bearing appellants' name and also saw three strips of rotted...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
York v. Peele
...the New York, Chicago & St. Louis Railroad Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed. Superseding opinion in 157 N. E. 106. Certiorari denied 49 S. Ct. 263, 73 L. Ed. -.Bell, Kirkpatrick, McClure & Elliott, of Kokomo, Russell P. Harker, of Frankfort, and W. A. Eversma......
- Hurst v. Reeder