In re Humphrey
| Decision Date | 26 May 1917 |
| Citation | 227 Mass. 166,116 N.E. 412 |
| Parties | In re HUMPHREY. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Superior Court, Suffolk County.
Proceedings by Eliza S. Humphrey for compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, opposed by the Employers' Liability Assurance Corporation, insurer. From decree for the employé, the insurer appeals. Reversed, and decree entered for insurer.
See, also, 115 N. E. 253.
Sawyer, Hardy, Stone & Morrison, of Boston (Gay Gleason, of Boston, of counsel), for appellant.
Arthur V. Harper, of Boston, for appellee.
Eliza S. Humphrey acted as cashier and bookkeeper for her husband, who was conducting a store business. They lived together in a house near the store. She was injured within the plot of land occupied by the store while going to the home. She received regular wages from her husband, who was a ‘subscriber’ under the Workmen's Compensation Act. Her service began at a time when her husband and his brother as copartners were carrying on the business, but the husband subsequently acquired the interest of his brother, and she continued her work as before. The question is, whether a wife can be an employé of her husband under the Workmen's Compensation Act. It is provided by St. 1911, c. 751, pt. 5, § 2, that “Employé' shall include every person in the service of another under any contract of hire, express or implied, oral or written,' with exceptions not here material. Plainly a wife working for her husband is not within the scope of this definition. Obviously one cannot be an employé without a contract. That is recognized by the words of the act. Employment presupposes a contractual relation. A married woman cannot make a contract express or implied with her husband. R. L. c. 153, §§ 2 and 4; Woodward v. Spurr, 141 Mass. 283, 284, 6 N. E. 521;National Bank of Republic v. Delano, 185 Mass. 424, 70 N. E. 444. A married woman cannot make a valid contract with a partnership of which her husband is a member. Edwards v. Stevens, 3 Allen, 315;Fowle v. Torrey, 135 Mass. 87. The circumstance that in the case at bar the wife began working for the partnership composed of her husband and his brother is inmaterial. It is clear, also, aside from the definition, that the Workmen's Compensation Act does not purport to extend the obligations of the employer to persons who were not employés at common law or outside the act . It is mainly a substitute for other common law and statutory remedies for those persons who rightly are included within the descriptive...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bendler v. Bendler
...common usage, one cannot be an employee without a contract. Employment ordinarily presupposes a contractual relation. In re Humphrey's Case, 227 Mass. 166, 116 N.E. 412, L.R.A.1918F, 193 (1917). But there is more to render certain the statutory concept. The elective scheme becomes operative......
-
Adams v. Continental Life Ins. Co.
... ... Freeland v. Williamson, 220 ... Mo. 231; Blodgett v. Perry, 97 Mo. 272; ... Scrutchfield v. Sauter, 119 Mo. 623; Skoczlois ... v. Vincour, 221 N.Y. 276, 116 N.E. 1004; Fidelity & Cas. Co. v. Baker, 18 P.2d 894; In re Humphrey, ... 227 Mass. 166, 116 N.E. 412; Employers Liab. Assur. Corp ... v. Ind. Acc. Comm., 203 P. 95. (b) The answer signed and ... filed by the Continental, and the letters written by Arlie ... Mays, the manager of its real estate department, to ... respondent's attorney, are not binding on ... ...
-
In re McDermott
...from a servant generally (Campbell v. Arnold, 219 Mass. 160, 106 N. E. 599), one must serve under a contract of hire (Humphrey's Case, 227 Mass. 166, 116 N. E. 412, L. R. A. 1918F, 193;Cameron v. State Theatre Co., 256 Mass. 466, 152 N. E. 880;Labatte v. Lavallee, 258 Mass. 527, 155 N. E. 4......
-
Thomas J. McDermott's Case
... ... employer and employee is the same relation that is familiar ... throughout the law under the name of master and servant, ... except that to be an employee, as distinguished from a ... servant generally (Campbell v. Arnold, 219 Mass ... 160), one must serve under a contract of hire. Humphrey's ... Case, 227 Mass. 166 ... Cameron v. State Theatre Co ... 256 Mass. 466 ... Labatte v. Lavallee, 258 Mass. 527 ... The exact point at ... issue is whether the claimant was a servant or employee, or ... an independent contractor. The essence of the distinction is ... the right ... ...