Marion Water Co. v. Indus. Comm'n
| Decision Date | 06 April 1938 |
| Docket Number | No. 24390.,24390. |
| Citation | 14 N.E.2d 236,368 Ill. 350 |
| Parties | MARION WATER CO. v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION et al. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error to Circuit Court, Williamson County; D. F. Rumsey, Judge.
Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Robert Whitlock, claimant, opposed by the Marion Water Company, alleged employer. Judgment confirming an award of the Industrial Commission in favor of claimant, and the Marion Water Company brings error.
Reversed and remanded, with directions.
R. W. Harris and Stone & Fowler, all of Marion, for defendant in error.
In 1932 the defendant in error, Robert Whitlock, was living on a little tract of about six acres of land in or adjoining the city of Marion, Ill., which was owned by the plaintiff in error, the Marion Water Company. On this property there was a small house, a pond, and about two acres of tillable land. Whitlock, who was then 76 or 78 years old (he testified he did not remember which), went to live in this house under an agreement with the superintendent of the water company that he would keep the place cleaned up, take care of it, and keep people from swimming in the pond. On July 11, 1935, while mowing weeds or grass on this property, he fell down and broke his leg, for which accidental injury he was awarded compensation by the Industrial Commission. This award having been confirmed by the circuit court of Williamson county, the cause has been brought before us for review on writ of error granted by this court.
There is very little conflict in the small amount of evidence admitted Whitlock testified that the manager of the water company came to see him and urged him to take the property at $8.50 per month rent, which was to be paid by keeping it cleaned up, while the manager for the water company testified that he consented to Whitlock living in the house, if he would keep the place cleaned up, and that he let Whitlock live there because he felt sorry for him. Whitlock homself testified that at the time he went there he Was, and ever since has been, ‘on relief.’
The only point necessary for consideration is whether or not Whitlock was an employee of the Marion Water Company at the time of his injury. It is not disputed that he was never on the pay roll of that company nor is it even contended that he was subject to any orders from its manager, except Whitlock's contention that this manager from time to time made suggestions as to cutting weeds or cleaning things up.
Section 5 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, Ill.Rev.Stat.1937, c. 48, § 142, provides that: ‘The term ‘employee’ as used in this act, shall be construed to mean * * * every person in the service of another under any contract of hire, express or implied, oral or written, * * * but not including * * * any person who is not engaged in the usual course of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Anderson v. Poray, Inc.
...51 N.E.2d 157 (1943); Todd School for Boys v. Industrial Commission, 412 Ill. 453, 107 N.E.2d 745 (1952); Marion Water Co. v. Industrial Commission, 368 Ill. 350, 14 N.E.2d 236 (1938); Kijowski v. Times Pub. Co., 372 Ill. 311, 23 N.E.2d 703 In the Crepps case, Crepps, the claimant, an elect......
-
American Casualty Co. of Reading, Penn. v. Wypior
...Co., 21 Ill.2d 117, 171 N.E.2d 60 (1960); Kijowski v. Times Pub. Corp., 372 Ill. 311, 23 N.E.2d 703 (1939); Marion Water Co. v. Industrial Comm'n, 368 Ill. 350, 14 N.E.2d 236 (1938). The contract or agreement of employment may be express or implied, the control possessed by the employer as ......
-
Board of Ed. of City of Chicago v. Industrial Commission, 44967
...Act. (Athletic Ass'n of the University of Illinois v. Industrial Com. (1943), 384 Ill. 208, 51 N.E.2d 157; Marion Water Co. v. Industrial Com. (1938), 368 Ill. 350, 14 N.E.2d 236.) Upon consideration of the facts and circumstances in the case before us, we have come to the conclusion that t......
- People v. Cavenee