Hansen v. Adent
| Decision Date | 13 March 1953 |
| Docket Number | No. 35875,35875 |
| Citation | 238 Minn. 540,57 N.W.2d 681 |
| Parties | HANSEN v. ADENT et al. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
1.A partnership is an association of two or more persons to carry on as co-owners a business for profit.It is essential to the existence of a partnership that there be a joint contribution to the enterprise and something in the nature of a community of interest.When parties contribute their experience, capital, and energies to a common enterprise, in which they are to share the profits, a partnership may result, notwithstanding an expressed intention not to create such a relationship.Whether or not a partnership exists is a fact question.Held, under the record, that the commission could have determined that a partnership arrangement existed between relator and his associates on the date of the accident involved.
2.In reviewing the findings of the industrial commission the function of the supreme court is not to determine whether on the facts the decision of the commission is correct, or even preferable to another determination, but rather to determine whether the findings have sufficient basis of inference reasonably to be drawn from the facts.Findings of the industrial commission on a question of fact will not be disturbed upon review unless consideration of the evidence and the inferences permissible therefrom clearly require reasonable minds to adopt a conclusion contrary to the one arrived at by the commission.
3.The real test as to whether a person is an independent contractor or an employe is whether the asserted employer, under his arrangement with the other party, has or has not any authoritative control over the latter with respect to the manner and means in which and by which the details of his work are to be performed.Held that there was evidence to sustain the findings that deceased was an employe of the partnership at the time of his death.
Lawrence L. Lenertz, South St. Paul, for relator.
Briggs, Gilbert, Morton, Kyle & Macartney and Frank N. Graham, St. Paul, for respondent.
Certiorari to review an award of the industrial commission.
On October 26, 1950, a claim petition for compensation and benefits under the workmen's compensation act was filed with the industrial commission by one Melba C. Hansen, as widow of Kendall A. Hansen, deceased, against Peter Adent, John A. Adent, and J. Wilbur Kroon, individually and as partners doing business as Adent Bros. Produce and Adent Brothers, Inc., a corporation, employers.After hearings before a referee, an award was entered in favor of the widow and dependent children against J. Wilbur Kroon, Peter Adent, and John A. Adent, individually and as partners.J. Wilbur Kroon alone appealed to the industrial commission.The findings of the referee were affirmed.
Relator contends that he was not a member of any partnership and that Kendall A. Hansen was an independent contractor.While it is not necessary to the disposition of the case to set forth an extensive review of the record, it will be helpful to review briefly some of the evidence which was before the industrial commission.
On July 27, 1950, Kendall A. Hansen was the owner of a Mack trailer-type tractor, which he had purchased shortly before and had used only twice, on both occasions for the alleged partnership.On that date he was hired by Peter Adent for the trip on which the accident occurred.Before leaving, Hansen spent a considerable amount of time at the offices of Adent Bros. Produce.Negotiations were completed between Peter Adent and Hansen whereby the latter's tractor was leased, and by the terms of the contractor it was to be under the exclusive control of the partnership.It was further agreed that the partnership would pay all the fines and half of the tolls incurred on the trip and also pay for the public liability and property damage insurance for damages in excess of $100.Hansen was then given specific instructions as to the load of eggs he was to take to Williamsburg, Virginia, and the route he was to take on the trip.There was testimony that before he left St. Paul Hansen was given instructions by Peter Adent, one of the partners, to go to Onancock, Virginia, after delivering the eggs at Williamsburg, to see the dispatcher at the eastern end of the route about picking up a return load.The trailer Hansen was to haul, while referred to in the record as registered under Reefer Trailers, Incorporated, appears to have been the property of J. Wilbur Kroon, one of the alleged partners in the trucking business.Before leaving St. Paul, Hansen was also given a check of $100 as an advance payment from Peter Adent.
After delivering the eggs, Hansen went on to Onancock, Virginia, where he met the dispatcher and was told by him to pick up a load of potatoes at Eastville, Virginia, and transport them to Cleveland.Ohio.There was some discussion at that time about a contract covering the return trip, and it appears that the dispatcher finally wrote the words 'Contract same as Front side' on the back of the original contract and then gave Hansen a check for $100 from Adent Bros. Produce, signed by John Adent, as advance payment.There was evidence also that the dispatcher designated the route Hansen was to follow to Cleveland.After delivering the potatoes in Cleveland, Hansen was supposed to try to find a load by himself rather than deadhead back to Chicago.If successful, he was to get 70 percent of the commission and the partnership was to receive 30 percent.
On August 3, 1950, en route to Cleveland with the load of potatoes, Hansen was killed when the truck went off the highway.After the accident, the Adents gave Mrs. Hansen two checks for the pay due her husband, from which social security had been deducted for Mrs. Hansen.
The evidence in connection with the association of the Adents and Kroon is as follows: The three men met early in the spring of 1950.At the time both the Adents and Kroon owned separately a considerable amount of trucking equipment on which they were having difficulties in meeting the payments.Kroon had been leasing his trailers out, and the Adents had been using their equipment in trucking produce for others and also in trucking produce which they were buying and selling.After discussing their problems, a vague verbal understanding was reached.Kroon testified that he was not a partner, although he admitted that the word might have been used by the Adents during their talks.Kroom described the arrangement as one where--
'* * * the idea was they were going to use my trailers and use their tractors and they'd make payments and see how good we'd get along with it, if something could be done with it we might make some money on it.
'* * * We were going to throw both our equipment into one, and see if we could use it to the best of our advantage.'
Kroon was to share in the profits over and above what was needed to make payments on the equipment.He was not to share in the profits made by the Adents in the buying and selling of produce.It was understood by all the parties that, in the event not enough money was made to meet the payments on all the equipment, payments would be made on the equipment where most urgent and that under this arrangement either or both parties might lose their equipment or part of it.During the course of their discussion, some mention was made to the effect that Kroon would be able to draw $65 per week, plus expenses.
Offices for the operation of the business were taken at 786 Eustis street, St. Paul.The active management was mostly the work of the Adents.Kroon acted in the capacity of dispatcher and had the further responsibility of seeing that the equipment was in good and safe condition.The buying and selling of produce, as well as the trucking business, was carried on under the name of Adent Bros. Produce.Separate books were not kept, and all the money received was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lund v. Chemical Bank
...to obtain business loans, and maintained joint bank accounts. See Cyrus v. Cyrus, 242 Minn. 180, 64 N.W.2d 538 (1954); Hansen v. Adent, 238 Minn. 540, 57 N.W.2d 681 (1953). To defray the aircrafts' purchase prices and expenses, Rubin and Lund then leased the planes to FTC, using the lease s......
-
Petro v. Martin Baking Co.
...Co., 209 Minn. 596, 297 N.W. 19.6 Graf v. Montgomery Ward & Co. Inc., 234 Minn. 485, 49 N.W.2d 797, and cases cited.7 Hansen v. Adent, 238 Minn. ---, 57 N.W.2d 681, 684.8 It should be noted that some jurisdictions have rejected the aggressor defense despite the presence of one or more such ......
-
El Dorado Ins. Co. v. Industrial Commission
...v. Industrial Commission, supra; Daggett v. Nebraska-Eastern Express Inc., 252 Iowa 341, 107 N.W.2d 102 (1961); and Hansen v. Adent, 238 Minn. 540, 57 N.W.2d 681 (1953). El Dorado urges that the opinion of the court in Reed v. Industrial Commission of Arizona, supra, is dispositive of the f......
-
Hagberg v. Colonial & Pac. Frigidways, Inc.
...fact that defendant did not actually exercise control to the full extent to which it had power to do so is not important. Hansen v. Adent, 238 Minn. 540, 57 N.W.2d 681; Larson v. Le Mere, 220 Minn. 25, 18 N.W.2d Another factor which supports the finding of an employment relationship was def......