Liberty Lumber Co v. Silas

• Decision Date: 18 June 1934
• Docket Number: No. 23698.,23698.
• Citation: 175 S.E. 265,49 Ga.App. 262
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals
• Parties: LIBERTY LUMBER CO. v. SILAS.

49 Ga.App. 262

175 S.E. 265

LIBERTY LUMBER CO.

v.SILAS.

No. 23698.

Court of Appeals of Georgia,

Division No. 2.

June 18, 1934.

Syllabus by Editorial Staff.

Error from Superior Court, Effingham County; Wm, Woodrum, Judge.

Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Sudie Silas, claimant, opposed by the Liberty Lumber Company, employer. To review a judgment of the superior court affirming an award of the Department of Industrial Relations in favor of claimant, the employer brings error.

Affirmed.

Paul E. Seabrook, of Savannah, for plaintiff in error.

Ulmer & Dowell, of Savannah, for defendant in error.

Syllabus Opinion by the Court.

JENKINS, Presiding Judge.

1. Findings of fact made by the Department of Industrial Relations within its powers are, in the absence of fraud, conclusive, provided there is any supporting evidence. With respect to the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain an award by that department, the award stands in this court upon the same footing as the verdict of a jury approved by a trial judge in other cases. Maryland Casualty Co. v. England, 160 Ga. 810, 129 S. E. 75; Home Accident Ins. Co. v. Daniels, 42 Ga. App. 648 (1), 157 S. E. 245; London Guarantee & Accident Co. v. Shockley, 31 Ga. App. 762 (1), 122 S. E. 99.

2. In claims for compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, where the question is whether the injured person, or the person under whom he was working, occupied the relation of an employee or of an independent contractor toward the employer, the line of demarkation is often so close that each case must be determined upon its own particular facts. The chief test to be applied, however, "in determining whether the relationship of the parties under a contract for the performance of labor is that of employer and servant, or that of employer and independent contractor, lies in whether the contract gives, or the employer assumes, the right to control the time, manner, and method of executing the work, as distinguished from the right merely to require certain definite results in conformity to the contract." Home Accident Ins. Co. v. Daniels, supra (headnote 2); Cooper v. Dixie Construction Co., 45 Ga. App. 420 (2) 165 S. E. 152; Poss Bros. Lumber Co. v. Haynie, 37 Ga. App. 60 (2), 139 S. E. 127. Under this principle, it cannot be held that the finding of the Department of Industrial Relations, in this case, that the person for whom the deceased employee was working occupied the relation of employee rather than that of independent contractor toward the employer company, was without any supporting evidence. Although there was undisputed testimony that such person had orally contracted with the company to cut and haul logs to its mill at $3 per thousand feet for pine logs and $5 for cypress logs, and to maintain and keep in repair the equipment used in such operations, and that he hired, discharged, directed, and paid the employees working under him, there was further testimony that the company furnished to such person its own locomotive, tram,...