Marinette Cnty. Highway Comm. v. Indus. Comm'n

• Citation: 227 Wis. 560,278 N.W. 863
• Parties: MARINETTE COUNTY HIGHWAY COMMITTEE v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION et al.
• Decision Date: 12 April 1938
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin

227 Wis. 560

278 N.W. 863

MARINETTE COUNTY HIGHWAY COMMITTEE

v.INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION et al.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

April 12, 1938.

Appeal from a judgment of the Circuit Court for Dane County; August C. Hoppmann, Judge.

Reversed.

Action brought August 21, 1936, by Marinette County Highway Committee to set aside an award of the Industrial Commission, ordering the payment of compensation to Arvid E. West. From judgment setting aside the award, West appeals.

Prior to December 15, 1933, West was an employee of CWA, operating in Marinette county. About December 15, West, E. G. Sauld, chairman of the county highway committee and director of the CWA program in the county, D. F. Culbertson, division engineer for the state highway commission, Andrew Eklund, county highway commissioner, and one or two others met at the courthouse and discussed transferring West from CWA to National Recovery Work Relief. They agreed that West should be a project supervisor or engineer for the latter agency. The work subsequently supervised by him was done in Marinette county, consisting for the most part of shaping up and resurfacing town highways. The county highway commission had nothing to do with planning this work. Under an arrangement with the state highway commission, the county paid West by check, later being reimbursed by the state commission. The laborers working under West's direction were, for the most part, people who had received drought feed relief loans. West was injured while driving from one project to another. The examiner for the Industrial Commission found that West was employed by the county at the time of his injury and awarded compensation accordingly. The circuit court found that there was no credible evidence on which the examiner's finding could be based, and adjudged that the award be set aside.Evrard & Evrard, of Green Bay, for appellant.

S. E. Eastman, Sp.Asst. to Dist. Atty., of Marinette, for respondent.

FAIRCHILD, Justice.

We agree with the learned trial court that the evidence does not show who was the employer of defendant West at the time of his injury. The method of payment for his services does somewhat obscure the controlling entity, described as employer. There was apparently some interchange between the county of Marinette and the state involving West's services. But in the proceedings before the commission, neither the state nor the county, either of which may or may not have been the employer, was a party and...