In re Cheevers
| Decision Date | 24 November 1914 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
| Parties | In re CHEEVERS. In re FIDELITY & DEPOSIT CO. OF MARYLAND. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Superior Court, Berkshire County.
Proceeding, under the Workmen's Compensation Act, by Michael Cheevers, employé, against William A. Pierce, employer, and the Fidelity & Deposit Company of Maryland. From a decree of the superior court, confirming the decision of the Industrial Accident Board, which reversed the decision of the Committee of Arbitration in favor of Cheevers, he appeals. Affirmed.
P. J. Moore, of Pittsfield, for claimant.
A. L. Richards, of Boston, for insurer.
Cheevers contended that he was an employé of one Pierce and that he was entitled to compensation for an injury suffered by him while in that employ.
The facts found by the Committee of Arbitration were in substance as follows:
Cheevers conducted a teaming business in the city of Pittsfield, ‘having three or four separate horses and teams.’ He employed several men to work with these horses and teams, beside working with them himself. He did work for various persons in Pittsfield and that vicinity.
Pierce owned a coal yard in Pittsfield, where he did a retail coal business. At different times in 1911, 1912, and 1913, Pierce employed Cheevers to deliver his (Pierce's) coal with his (Cheevers') horse and team. The course of business was for Cheevers to come to the yard with his horse and team, put the coal into bags and lift them into his cart, or fill his cart in bulk from the chute. Cheevers ‘usually’ was helped in doing this by a laborer employed by Pierce. Pierce gave Cheevers written slips with the names and addresses of the purchasers of the coal, and with directions ‘to assist in carrying and putting the coal into the houses'; and the man who helped Cheevers in loading the coal at the yard went with him to help in putting the coal into the houses. This helper was paid by Pierce. Cheevers was paid five dollars a day for himself and his team. Pierce ‘hired Cheevers for this general work for no fixed duration of time and for no specified job.’ When Pierce wanted Cheevers he would say to him,' ‘I want you to come up and help me,’ and when asked by the Committee of Arbitration whether Cheevers would have a right to send another man, Pierce replied, ‘No, I wanted Cheevers, because he knew how to handle coal.’
As we construe the record, the accident happened on February 25, 1913, though in one place in the record it is stated that it happened on February 28, 1913. On this day Cheevers fell from his cart while delivering coal. One of Cheevers' men tried to do the work for Pierce on the following day in Cheevers' place, but was not able to do it to Pierce's satisfaction; and Cheevers' horse and team and man were not employed further. The last period Cheevers worked for Pierce (that is to say, the period here in question) was on February 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, and 25. The last period before that was on February 1, 2, 5, 6, and 7, 1912. In addition the Arbitration Committee made this further finding, to wit:
‘Cheevers worked the same as any other of Pierce's regular men, under his orders, loading, driving, and putting in coal.’
The committee decided ‘that in doing this work Cheevers was so under the direction and control of Pierce that the relation between them was that of master and servant,’ and made an award in his favor.
The Industrial Accident Board, on review of this decision of the Committee of Arbitration, made the following decision:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Flynn v. Carson
... ... Report of Industrial Accident Board of Idaho, p ... 167; Kowallis v. State Insurance Manager, Idem, p ... 171; Webster's New Internatl. [42 Idaho 144] Dictionary; ... Standard Dictionary (1924); In re Gaynor, 217 Mass ... 86, 104 N.E. 339, L. R. A. 1916A, 363; In re ... Cheevers, 219 Mass. 244, 106 N.E. 861; Aurora ... Brewing Co. v. Industrial Board of Illinois, 277 Ill ... 142, 115 N.E. 207; Chas. A. Smith & Co. v. Industrial ... Commission of Illinois, 299 Ill. 377, 132 N.E. 470; ... Diamond Livery v. Industrial Com. , 289 Ill. 591, ... 124 N.E. 609; ... ...
-
Lamont v. Intermountain Realty Co.
... ... earned by each of his employees engaged in such ... extra-hazardous employment during each calendar month of such ... employment." ... Commenting ... upon a similar provision in Massachusetts, the Supreme Court ... of that state said, in Michael Cheevers' Case, 219 Mass ... 244, 106 N.E. 861: ... "The ... scheme created by the workmen's compensation act is a ... scheme of insurance in which the premiums to be paid by the ... employer are based upon the wages paid by him to his ... employees. It may have been thought impracticable to ... ...
-
Chamberlain v. Cent. Vermont Ry. Co.
...N. E. 470. Other cases involving the same general question, with like holdings, are the following: Gaynor's Case, supra; Cheever's Case, 219 Mass. 244, 106 N. E. 861; King's Case, 220 Mass. 290, 107 N. E. 959; Western Union Tel. Co. v. Hickman, supra; Herbig v. Walton Auto Co., 191 Iowa, 39......
-
Fay H. Chamberlain v. Central Vermont Railway Co
... ... the same court in the later case of Charles A. Smith & Co. v. Industrial Commission, 299 Ill. 377, 132 N.E ... 470. Other cases involving the same general question, with ... like holdings, are the following: Gaynor's Case, ... supra; Cheevers Case, 219 Mass. 244, ... 106 N.E. 861; King's Case, 220 Mass. 290, 107 ... N.E. 959; Western Union Tel. Co. v. Hickman, ... supra; Herbig v. Walton Auto Co., 191 ... Iowa 394, 182 N.W. 204; Porter v. Mapleton Electric Light ... Co., 191 Iowa 1031, 183 N.W. 803; Pooler's ... Case, 122 Me. 11, ... ...