E. L. Bruce Co. v. Hampton

• Decision Date: 07 November 1955
• Docket Number: No. 39770,39770
• Citation: 225 Miss. 242,83 So.2d 101
• Parties: E. L. BRUCE COMPANY and American Employers Insurance Co. v. Thirsty HAMPTON et al.
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court

Page 101

83 So.2d 101

225 Miss. 242

E. L. BRUCE COMPANY and American Employers Insurance Co. v. Thirsty HAMPTON et al.

No. 39770.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Nov. 7, 1955.

Butler, Snow, O'Mara, Stevens, & Cannada, Jackson, for appellants.

L. P. Spinks, Jr., DeKalb, for appellees.

ETHRIDGE, Justice.

This is a death claim under the Mississippi Workmen's Compensation Act, Code 1942, Sec. 6998-01 et seq., and involves the question of whether appellant E. L. Bruce Company was the employer of the deceased, John Henry Hampton. We think that there was no employer-employee relationship, so the case is reversed and judgment rendered for appellants.

A brief statement of the ultimate facts follows. Hampton was hired by Willie Adcock and was killed on January 4, 1952, in an accident which arose out of and in the course of his employment. He was working at adcock's sawmill, and was caught in the machinery and killed while attempting to replace a belt on a pulley. E. L. Bruce Company purchased a tract of timber on two sections of land in Kemper County. The timber which was to be cut was marked with paint. On January 2, 1952, the Company entered into a written contract with J. D. Massey. Under it Massey agreed to cut the timber, manufacture it into lumber, and deliver the lumber to the Company's plaint in Columbus, Mississippi. Massey was to be paid $30 per thousand feet, as the lumber was delivered. Massey was to furnish the machinery, mill, trucks and equipment. The contract provided that he should use such methods and means of manufacturing and conveying the lumber as he should deem proper, and that all machinery and equipment should be in his exclusive charge and control, and not subject to the control or supervision of the Company except as to the result of the work. Massey was to employ such person to assist him in carrying out the contract as he thought proper, and any such persons so 'employed by him shall be under his exclusive charge and control and shall not be subject to the control or supervision' of the Company. The Company reserved the right to 'inspect the scene of operation from time to time for the sole purpose of determining whether or not this contract is being carried out according to its terms and to ascertain whether the results contemplated herein are being attained'. Massey agreed that 'in the performance of this contract (he) shall fully comply with' the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C.A. Sec. 201 et seq.

Massey then entered into an oral contract with Willie Adcock, by which Adcock was to perform the duties of Massey's contract with the Company for $28 per thousand. This gave Massey a net profit of $2 per thousand. The Company knew that Massey had entered into this contract which Adcock. However, without the knowledge of either Massey or the Company, Adcock entered into an alleged oral contract with his son Willie Paul Adcock, by which the latter would haul logs from the woods to the site of Adcock's mill for $8 per thousand, and was to furnish his own employees and tools. There were four men in the employ of Willie Paul. Without Massey's or the Company's knowledge Adcock also entered into an alleged oral contract with Charlie Barber, by which Barber agreed to fell the timber and cut it into logs for $4 per thousand, and by which Barber was to furnish his own employees, tools and equipment. Four men worked for Barber. Adcock used his own employees and his own will in cutting the logs into lumber, and he delivered the lumber to the Company's plant in Columbus with his own trucks. Adcock had six men working for him at the mill, including Hampton. Adcock, his son Willie Paul, and Barber did not carry any workmen's compensation insurance.

From time to time, but without any degree of regularity, one or two representatives of the Company, Witt and Ludlow, would visit the tract to see if the work was being properly done in accordance with the Company's contract with Massey. They would walk through the woods to see if only the marked trees were being cut, and would check the lumber being manufactured at the Adcock mill. Although there was some slight evidence to the contrary, the great weight of the evidence shows that the Company did not have the right to, and in fact did not, exercise any control over the men working in this timber cutting and manufacturing operation. None of the employees of Willie Adcock or of his two so-called subcontractors were on the Company's payroll. The entire cutting and manufacturing operation was carried on under the orders and directions of Willie Adcock....