La May v. Indus. Comm'n
Decision Date | 08 April 1920 |
Docket Number | No. 12948.,12948. |
Citation | 126 N.E. 604,292 Ill. 76 |
Parties | LA MAY v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION et al. |
Court | Illinois 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.
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:
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- Rutherford v. Tobin Quarries
-
Bjorseth v. North Dakota Workmen's Compensation Bureau
..."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.
...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
...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......