Fleckles v. Hille
| Decision Date | 15 December 1925 |
| Docket Number | No. 12453.,12453. |
| Citation | 149 N.E. 915,83 Ind.App. 715 |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
| Parties | FLECKLES v. HILLE et al. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Industrial Board.
Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Maurice Fleckles, employee, opposed by Michael Hille and others, employers. Compensation was awarded by the Industrial Board, and the employers appeal. Reversed.
Charles S. Lundin and William J. Reed, both of Knox, for appellants.
Wm. J. McAleer, Francis J. Dorsey, Gerald A. Gillett, and Perry R. Chapin, all of Hammond, for appellee.
Appellants owned and operated a farm consisting of 40 acres, one-fourth of which was under cultivation. The principal business of appellants in the operation of the farm was the production of eggs and poultry, the farm being designated as the Winter Green Poultry Farm. Appellee was employed by appellants. His duties were to perform any and all kinds of labor to which he was assigned in the conduct of the farm. During the period of his employment he had assisted in the planting and cultivation of the crops and in cutting weeds, but most of his work was in feeding and caring for the poultry. While handling sacks of feed preparatory to feeding chickens, appellee received a personal injury as a result of an accident, for which injury he filed with the Industrial Board a claim for compensation. At the hearing, the evidence without conflict established, and the board found the facts as above stated and made an award in favor of appellee. From the award this appeal is prosecuted.
[1] The one question for determination is: Was appellee, at the time he received the injury, a farm or agricultural employee within the meaning of section 9 of the Workmen's Compensation Act (Acts 1919, p. 159, c. 57), which provides that the act shall not apply to “farm or agricultural employés”?
It is contended by appellee, and apparently the Industrial Board adopted that view, that in the operation of the farm appellants were in the business of raising poultry, to which business farming by them was but incidental; and that appellee was, therefore, not a farm or agricultural employee. This contention cannot prevail. The terms “farm employee” and “agricultural employee” as used in this state have substantially the same meaning. If there is any difference, the latter expression, which necessarily includes the former, has a broader meaning. See Davis v. Industrial Commission (1922) 59 Utah, 607, 206 P. 267.
The term “agriculture...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Murphy v. Mid-West Mushroom Co.
...v. Unemployment Comp. Comm., 127 N. J. L. 149, 21 A.2d 690; City of Higbee v. Burgin, 197 Mo.App. 682, 201 S.W. 558; Fleckles v. Hille, 83 Ind.App. 715, 149 N.E. 915; In re Roby, 54 Wyo. 439, 93 P.2d 940; Sumatra Tobacco Corp. v. Tone, 127 Conn. 132, 15 A.2d 80, affirming Connecticut Superi......
-
Lake County v. Cushman, 75--234
...chickens at a given time raised no crops on the land and the feed was not raised on the land. Likewise the court in Fleckles v. Hille (1925), 83 Ind.App. 715, 149 N.E. 915, ruled that 'agricultural' included the raising, feeding and management of live-stock or poultry and the fact the appel......
-
Hinson v. Creech
...farm chore connected with the raising of chickens and production of eggs. The Court of Appeals also relied upon Fleckles v. Hille, 83 Ind.App. 715, 149 N.E. 915, which stated that agriculture includes the 'raising, feeding and management of livestock and poultry,' and upon Davis v. Industri......
-
Heffner v. White
... ... a chicken farm was a farm employee and therefore not covered ... by the act. Fleckles v. Hille, 1925, 83 Ind.App ... 715, 149 N.E. 915 ... [47 N.E.2d 966.] ... Again ... in the same year in Dowery v. State of ... ...