Garnant v. Shell Petroleum Corp.
Decision Date | 06 November 1933 |
Citation | 65 S.W.2d 1052,228 Mo.App. 256 |
Parties | THOMAS GARNANT, RESPONDENT, v. SHELL PETROLEUM CORP., APPELLANT |
Court | Kansas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court of Clinton County.--Hon. Guy B. Park Judge.
AFFIRMED.
Judgment affirmed.
Elton T. Harris and Randolph & Randolph for respondent.
Thompson Mitchell, Thompson & Young, Charles H. Wagner and Malcolm E Grant for appellant.
This case originated before the Workmen's Compensation Commission. A final award was obtained from two members, one member dissenting. The cause was appealed to the Circuit Court and the award of the Commission was there affirmed. From the judgment of the circuit court, the defendant has duly prosecuted its appeal to this court.
The facts as gathered from the record show that prior to and on June 11, 1930, one Cleo Runnels owned a building and some equipment commonly designated as a filling station. On June 11, 1930, Runnels and his wife, Ruth E. Runnels, executed a lease of said premises to the Shell Petroleum Corporation, a Virginia corporation, the defendant herein. Said lease was accepted and the same attested by A. S. N. Payne, regional manager for defendant. The consideration in said lease was, that as rent for said premises, defendant was to pay lessors one-half cent per gallon on all gasoline sold. Defendant further convenanted to operate said station in a business-like manner and endeavor to promote and increase the sale of gasoline at said station.
The equipment referred to in the lease is shown to consist of items shown by inventory marked Exhibit A, which is in words and figures as follows:
On August 1, 1930, the defendant entered into a contract with Cleo Runnels to run and operate the filling station leased as above set forth.
This contract of employment is so germane to the issues presented in this case that we here set the same out in full as follows:
The evidence discloses that Cleo Runnels, in place of individually running the station in question, hired his nephew one George Pittman as his agent to operate the station. It appears from the evidence that Runnels came around, generally on Mondays, to check up with Pittman. Runnels testified that while Pittman was his agent with full power and control to run and operate the station, that still he never gave Pittman any right to hire anybody; that although the hours were long he expected Pittman to stay there and that he expected his wife to take him his lunch. Runnels testified that he had instructed Pittman to keep the station open from six (6) to nine (9) a period of fifteen hours.
It was shown by the evidence that Pittman employed the claimant as a relief man at the station and that claimant received one dollar if half day or less and two dollars if over one-half day and it was shown that claimant was paid from the cash drawer where the money for sales was placed.
It was shown that when claimant was working at the station he...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Texas Co. v. Wheeless
... ... 635; Leland v. Oliver, 255 P. 775; Losee ... v. Paramount Corp., 242 N.Y.S. 608; Louisiana Oil ... Co. v. Renno, 173 Miss. 609, 157 ... A. (N. S.) 773; Sams v ... Arthur, 133 S.E. 205, 135 S.C. 123; Shell Petroleum ... Co. v. Linham, 163 So. 839; Texas Co. v. Mills, ... 171 ... ...
-
Reeves v. Fraser-Brace Engineering Co.
... ... 1124, 22 S.W.2d 61; ... Lamkins v. Copper Clad Range Corp. (Mo. App.), 42 ... S.W.2d 941; Thrower v. Life & Casualty Ins. Co ... Fred Schmitt Contracting Co., 335 Mo. 721, 73 S.W.2d ... 1011; Garnant v. Shell Petroleum Corp., 228 Mo.App ... 256, 65 S.W.2d 1052; Schutz ... ...
-
Becker v. Aschen
... ... 922; Greene v. Spinning, 48 S.W.2d 51; Coffman ... v. Shell Pet. Corp., 71 S.W.2d 97; Garnant v. Shell ... Pet. Corp., 65 S.W.2d ... (Mo ... App.), 92 S.W.2d 922, 928; Garnant v. Shell ... Petroleum Corp., 228 Mo.App. 256, 65 S.W.2d 1052; ... Coffman v. Shell Petroleum ... ...
-
Evans v. Chevrolet Motor Co.
... ... 501, 40 S.W.2d 503; Plank v ... R. J. Brown Petroleum Co., 332 Mo. 1150, 61 S.W.2d 328; ... Wagner Electric Co. v. Snowden, 38 ... Contracting Co., 335 Mo. 721, 73 S.W.2d 1011; ... Garnant v. Shell Pet. Corp., 228 Mo.App. 256, 65 ... S.W.2d 1052; McComosh v ... ...