Hinkle v. Miller
| Decision Date | 07 February 1933 |
| Docket Number | No. 22542.,22542. |
| Citation | 56 S.W.2d 825 |
| Parties | HINKLE v. MILLER et al. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; Robt. W. Hall, Judge.
"Not to be published in State Reports."
Proceeding under Workmen's Compensation Act by Marie Hinkle, widow of Claude Hinkle, deceased, claimant, opposed by Charles Miller, the Morris Truck Company, and the McKelvey-Carter Construction Company, alleged employers, and the New York Indemnity Company, insurer. From judgment affirming award of Workmen's Compensation Commission denying the claim, claimant appeals.
Affirmed.
Goodman & Stephenson and A. L. Wackwitz, all of St. Louis, for appellant.
Allen, Moser & Marsalek, of St. Louis, for respondent.
This is an appeal by the claimant, Marie Hinkle, dependent widow of Claude Hinkle, from the judgment of the circuit court of the city of St. Louis, affirming an award made by the Workmen's Compensation Commission, which denied the claim of the widow, Marie Hinkle, for compensation for the death of her husband.
The claim was filed against Charles Miller, Morris Truck Company, McKelvey-Carter Construction Company, and the New York Indemnity Company, the insurer.
On the form provided for the filing of claims, with the Compensation Commission, in answer to questions, claimant stated as follows:
The McKelvey-Carter Construction Company and the New York Indemnity Company, insurer, filed their joint answer to the claim for compensation denying that the deceased was in their employ and further denying that there was an accident arising out of and within the course of the employment.
Charles Miller filed his answer to said claim setting out that the deceased was the only person employed by him and stating that he did not come within the purview of the Compensation Act, and stating further that the said deceased was not in the employ of any other person or firm at the time of his death, and also stating that he (Miller) was an independent contractor at the time of the death of the deceased.
The Hon. Evert Richardson, commissioner, made the following award on hearing (omitting formal parts):
On review by claimant, the whole commission made the following final award:
On the morning of June 11, 1928, Miller and Hinkle drove the trucks from the Broad-Wal Garage, leaving there about 6 a. m. on the way out to where the McKelvey-Carter Construction Company was doing excavating. They commenced work at 7 a. m. They (Miller and Hinkle) stopped at a restaurant on Washington and Vandeventer avenues to get their breakfast, after which the deceased (Hinkle) went to his truck and started to crank it. He had left the truck in gear. The truck started forward and crushed him between the two trucks, injuring him, from which injuries he died.
James Walter Norris testified that he was a truck owner, and further testified as follows:
Norris further testified that Miller had been working in connection with his (Norris) trucks right along, and stated that Miller worked for "those people" about as much as he did. Norris further testified that he just worked for the McKelvey-Carter people; that he was an employee; that McKelvey-Carter used to make out one check to him, and he would get the check cashed and give the money to the "other fellows" and this procedure was followed on this job; that he paid Miller.
Norris further testified as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rutherford v. Tobin Quarries
...Superior Mineral Co., 70 S.W.2d 1104; Carman v. Cen. Western Dairies, 58 S.W.2d 781; Jones v. Century Coal Co., 46 S.W.2d 197; Hinkle v. Miller, 56 S.W.2d 825. (2) Rutherford was an independent contractor, compensation was properly denied. Doyle v. Erard, 54 S.W.2d 1006; Employers' Liabilit......
-
Adams v. Continental Life Ins. Co.
... ... S.W.2d 427; De Moss v. Evens & Howard Fire Brick ... Co., 57 S.W.2d 720; Gillick v. Fruin-Colnon Const ... Co., 65 S.W.2d 927; Hinkle v. Miller, 56 S.W.2d ... 825; King v. Mark Twain Hotel Co., 60 S.W.2d 675; ... Kiser v. O'Connor Ptg. Co., 60 S.W.2d 636. (2) ... The ... ...
-
Woodruff v. Superior Mineral Co.
...v. Mark Twain Hotel, 60 S.W.2d 675; Herndon v. Robertson Const. Co., 59 S.W.2d 75; McCully v. Kelley-Dempsey Co., 57 S.W.2d 784; Hinkle v. Miller, 56 S.W.2d 825. (4) Where facts in dispute, the finding of the commission is final and cannot be disturbed on appeal if there is competent eviden......
-
Butner v. L. W. Hayes Const. Co.
... ... N.Y.S. 1032; Kowalek v. New York Cons. R. Co., 128 N.E. 888, ... l. c. 889 ... Roy ... Hamlin, Walter Juett, William Miller and Ben Ely for ... respondent ... (1) ... Where the servant is doing the work which his master has ... instructed him to do ... Century Coal Co., 46 S.W.2d 96; Schulte v. Grand Tea & Coffee Co., 43 S.W.2d 832; Keithley v. Woods Bros ... Const. Co., 56 S.W.2d 628; Hinkle v. Miller, 56 ... S.W.2d 825.] ... The ... learned trial judge in affirming the award of the Commission ... stated very ... ...