Mashburn v. Ne Hi Bottling Co, NE-HI
| Decision Date | 15 July 1950 |
| Docket Number | NE-HI |
| Citation | 191 Tenn. 135,232 S.W.2d 11,27 Beeler 135 |
| Parties | MASHBURN v.BOTTLING CO. et al. 27 Beeler 135, 191 Tenn. 135, 232 S.W.2d 11 |
| Court | Tennessee Supreme Court |
McAllester & McAllester, Chattanooga, for plaintiff in error.
Frank N. Bratton, Athens, R. A. Davis, Athens, for defendant in error.
Petition to rehear has been filed which complains of certain statements of fact in our former opinion: (1) It is insisted that petitioner's head was crushed by a tractor, and not as we stated, by a truck. This is a workmen's compensation case and it is immaterial whether the machine was a tractor or a truck since petitioner was using the machine in the course of his employment. (2) We stated that the driveway upon which petitioner was working at the time of his accident, was necessary, as affording means of ingress and egress to the Bottling Plant. In the petition to rehear, it is insisted that the driveway was not 'necessary,' but 'would make it more convenient in that while one truck was being loaded at the south end of the building, the other truck or trucks would drive around to the rear of the building and park.' From this statement it is clear beyond peradventure, that the purpose for which the driveway was being built, was to afford ingress...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Strader v. United Family Life Ins. Co.
...trial and seasonably brought to the attention of the trial judge. Mashburn v. Ne-Hi Bottling Company, 191 Tenn. 135, 229 S.W.2d 520, 232 S.W.2d 11 (1950); Hyter v. Wheland Company, 207 Tenn. 127, 338 S.W.2d 571 We are of the opinion from what we have hereinabove said, the 1965 amendment to ......
-
Rhyne v. Lunsford
...managers, on work of a repair or construction character'. Mashburn v. Ne-Hi Bottling Co., 191 Tenn. 135, 139-140, 229 S.W.2d 520, 232 S.W.2d 11. Lunsford was employed on January 18, 1951 by Rhyne to work in Rhyne's regular lumber business. His employment continued regularly for a period of ......
-
City of Memphis v. Uselton
...Jacks case has been repeatedly cited by the Supreme Court as late as Mashburn v. Ne-Hi Bottling Co., 191 Tenn. 135, 138, 229 S.W.2d 520, 232 S.W.2d 11, and by this Court as late as Savage v. Spur Distributing Co., 33 Tenn.App. 27, 35, 228 S.W.2d 122, for the general rule that no assignment ......
-
Smith v. Lincoln Memorial University
...meets justice, logic and a correct legal conclusion under our statute. See Mashburn v. Ne-Hi Bottling Co., 191 Tenn. 135, 229 S.W.2d 520, 232 S.W.2d 11. As we said above, we think this the logical and correct conclusion to reach. It is for these reasons that we affirm the judgment of the ...