La May v. Indus. Comm'n

Decision Date08 April 1920
Docket NumberNo. 12948.,12948.
Citation126 N.E. 604,292 Ill. 76
PartiesLA MAY v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION et al.
CourtIllinois Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Writ of Error to the Circuit Coprt, Peoria County; John M. Niehous, Judge, presiding.

Proceedings under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Ellen Duffy, administratrix, to recover compensation for the death of her husband, Cecil Duffy, opposed by Ernest La May, alleged employer. An award of compensation was sustained by the circuit court, and the alleged employer brings error.

Reversed.

Hunter, Page & Kavanaugh, of Peoria, Russell B. James, of Chicago, Andrew C. Wylie, of Evanston, and Hans L. Howard, of Chicago, for plaintiff in error.

McRoberts & Morgan, of Peoria, for defendant in error.

CARTER, J.

Ellen Duffy, as administratrix of the estate of Cecil Duffy, deceased, filed a claim under the Workmen's Compensation Act (Hurd's Rev. St. 1917, c. 48 §§ 126-152i) against Ernest La May, plaintiff in error, for the death of her husband, who was killed while cutting down trees which were being sawed into lumber by a portable sawmill on the farm on which the timber grew. Compensation was awarded by the Industrial Commission, and the award was sustained on review by the circuit court.

Plaintiff in error was a farmer living near Monica, in Peoria county. He had also been operating the movable sawmill some time previous to the accident, and had employed the deceased, Duffy, in connection with that work. He had entered into a contract with Emily E. Elliott to cut and saw into lumber a number of trees on her farm. James Reed was also employed by him in connection with the work of this portable sawmill. On December 24, 1917, plaintiff in error and Reed entered into a contract, signed by both of them, which provided, in part, as follows:

‘Whereas, La May now has one steam engine, one corn sheller, and one water tank used in corn-shelling business, and one steam engine, one lumber saw, and one log outfit now set in timber of Miss Emily Elliott, south of Monica, Ill.: It is understood and agreed that James Reed shall go ahead with work of corn shelling for people who desire same in the territory heretofore handled by Ernest La May, and that Reed is to furnish all labor and all repairs when there is no one article to buy costing more than $5. It is also understood and agreed that Reed shall continue to take trees down and cut into lumber as requested by La May and his customers, Reed to furnish all repairs when there is no one article to buy that costs more than $5. On corn shelling La May shall pay to Reed, * * * and for logging and sawing into lumber the sum of $11 per thousand feet. It is further understood and agreed that Reed shall furnish oils needed for both rigs and shall keep rigs in good ordinary repair, the same as when taken by him, providing only articles costing more than $5 shall be purchased by La May. * * * It is further agreed that this contract shall end at close of business on March 31, 1918.’

After this contract was executed Duffy continued to work under Reed the same as he had been working for La May before the contract was signed. Reed testified that ‘Duffy was working there when I leased the mill, and I just took him over.’ Reed paid him his wages and directed his work and told him of the lease of the mill from La May. After the date of this contract, December 24,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • Rutherford v. Tobin Quarries
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 7 Mayo 1935
  • Bjorseth v. North Dakota Workmen's Compensation Bureau
    • United States
    • North Dakota Supreme Court
    • 30 Septiembre 1932
    ..."independent contractor," see McKever v. Marland, 174 N.E. 517; Nelson Bros. & Co. v. Industrial Commission, 161 N.E. 113; Lamay v. Industrial Commission, 126 N.E. 604. term "business" as used in Workmen's Compensation Acts has the same meaning as the words "trade" or "profession," and it d......
  • Hartley v. Red Ball Transit Co., 20668.
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • 18 Junio 1931
    ...whom the work is done, without his being subject to the orders of the latter in respect to the details of the work. LaMay v. Industrial Com., 292 Ill. 76, 126 N. E. 604;Meredosia Drainage District v. Industrial Com., 285 Ill. 68, 120 N. E. 516. If the person for whom the work is being done ......
  • Kehrer v. Indus. Commissionindustrial Comm'n 
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • 12 Febrero 1937
    ...Stellwagen v. Industrial Comm., 359 Ill. 557, 195 N.E. 29;Besse v. Industrial Comm., 336 Ill. 283, 168 N.E. 368;LaMay v. Industrial Comm., 292 Ill. 76, 126 N.E. 604. It is impossible, however, to lay down a rule by which the status of men working and contracting together can be accurately d......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT