Gallie v. Detroit Auto Accessory Co.
| Decision Date | 13 November 1923 |
| Docket Number | No. 18,Oct. Term.,18 |
| Citation | 224 Mich. 703,195 N.W. 667 |
| Parties | GALLIE v. DETROIT AUTO ACCESSORY CO. et al. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Certiorari to Department of Labor and Industry.
Proceedings under the Workmen's Compensation Act by P. C. Gallie, for compensation for injuries, opposed by the Detroit Auto Accessory Company, employer, and Travelers' Insurance Company. From an order of the Compensation Board, granting an award, defendants bring certiorari. Award affirmed.
Argued before WIEST, C. J., and FELLOWS, McDONALD, CLARK, BIRD, SHARPE, MOORE, and STEERE, JJ. Vandeveer & Foster, of Detroit, for respondents.
The facts have been stipulated as follows:
‘It is stipulated and agreed that the Detroit Auto Accessory Company is a copartnership, and this compensation insurance was carried on December 18, 1922, by the Travelers' Insurance Company; that P. C. Gallie and J. J. Timpy were the only members of said copartnership; that on December 18, 1922, P. C. Gallie was a working member of said partnership, said wages being $25 a week; that on December 18, 1922, P. C. Gallie suffered an accidental personal injury arising out of and in the course of his employment, which resulted in 47 days' disability, and the incurrence of medical attention to the extent of $51.’
This case presents the question of whether ‘working members of partnerships, receiving wages irrespective of profits,’ are employés within the meaning of the Workmen's Compensation Law (Pub. Acts Ex. Sess. 1912, No. 10) and, if injured while so employed, entitled to invoke its provisions. Act No. 173, Public Acts 1921, purports to answer the question in the affirmative. But we are asked to hold that part of the act void, for the reason that it came into the act as an amendment under a title not broad enough to embrace it.
Our Workmen's Compensation Law, when first enacted, followed closely the English and Scotch acts on the same subject. The English courts have uniformly held against compensation being awarded working members of partnerships, and it is clear that, except for the amendment of 1921, working members of partnerships could not be considered employés within the meaning of the act. This being true, defendant contends it was not enough to extend the scope and purpose of the act without also recasting the title so as to express such object.
In 1912, when the Workmen's Compensation Law was enacted, it was felt that the object embraced in such law was expressed in the title, reading as follows:
‘An act to promote the welfare of the people of this state, relating to the liability of employers for injuries or death sustained by their employés, providing compensation for the accidental injury to or death of employés and methods for the payment of the same, establishing an industrial accident board, defining its powers, providings for a review of its awards, making an appropriation to carry out the provisions of this act, and restricting the right to compensation or damages...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Chambers v. Macon Wholesale Grocer Co.
...Ann. Code of Tenn., sec. 3369. (g) States that have by statute made a working member of a partnership an employee. Gallie v. Detroit Auto Accessory Co., 195 N.W. 667; Ohio Drilling Co. v. State Industrial Comm., 207 314; Dixon Casing Crew v. State Industrial Comm., 235 P. 605; Deatherage & ......
-
Scott v. Alsar Co.
...of the inclusion of the working members of a partnership within the definition of 'employe' as used in the act. Gallie v. Detroit Auto Accessory Co., 224 Mich. 703, 195 N.W. 667. Approved, also are the provisions of section 10, pt. 1, of the Workmen's Compensation Act which makes the princi......
-
Bay City v. State Bd. of Tax Admin.
...that the title, which remained unchanged, does not cover the Act as amended, as is contended by appellants. Gallie v. Detroit Auto Accessory Co., 224 Mich. 703, 195 N.W. 667. In numerous decisions of this court it has held in substance that the title to an act is good if it fairly indicates......
-
Trappey v. Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co.
...there were profits or not. Johnson v. Industrial Accident Commission, 1926, 198 Cal. 234, 244 P. 321, and Gallie v. Detroit Auto Accessory Co., 193, 224 Mich. 703, 195 N.W. 667. Judge Learned Hand in Re Samuels & Lesser, D.C.S.D.N.Y.1913, 207 F. 195, 198, recognized the 'great simplicity' w......