Murphy v. Mid-West Mushroom Co.

• Decision Date: 15 December 1942
• Docket Number: 38157
• Citation: 168 S.W.2d 75,350 Mo. 658
• Parties: Andrew J. Murphy, Sr., Chairman; Edward C. Crow, and Harry P. Drisler, Members of the Unemployment Compensation Commission of Missouri, Appellants, v. Mid-West Mushroom Company, a Corporation
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

168 S.W.2d 75

350 Mo. 658

Andrew J. Murphy, Sr., Chairman; Edward C. Crow, and Harry P. Drisler, Members of the Unemployment Compensation Commission of Missouri, Appellants, v. Mid-West Mushroom Company, a Corporation

No. 38157

Supreme Court of Missouri

December 15, 1942

Rehearing Denied January 19, 1943.

Appeal from Jackson Circuit Court; Hon. Emory H. Wright Judge.

Affirmed, except as to costs.

George A. Rozier, Chief Counsel, and Mahlon Z. Eubank Assistant Counsel, for appellants; Harry G. Waltner Jr., of counsel.

(1) The definition of the term "agricultural labor" does not include services performed in artificially growing mushrooms. Duys v. Tone, 125 Conn. 300, 5 A.2d 23; In re Spengler, 238 F. 862; In re McMurray, 6 F.Supp. 449; First Natl. Bank v. Beach, 301 U.S. 435; Dillard v. Webb, 55 Ala. 468; Kroger v. A. T. Woods, Inc., 31 P.2d 255; Hein v. Ludwig, 179 A. 917, 118 Pa.Super. 152; Springer v. Lewis, 22 P. 191; Simmons v. Lovell, 54 Tenn. (7 Heisk.), 510; Unemployment Comp. Division v. Valker's Greenhouses, Inc., 70 N.D. 515, 296 N.W. 143; Standard Dictionary and Bouvier's Law Dictionary (Rawles Third Revision); Modern Encyclopedia quoted in Hight v. Industrial Comm., 34 P.2d 404; New Standard Dictionary quoted in Bucher v. American Fruit Growers' Co., 163 A. 33, 107 Pa.Super. 399; State v. Stewart, 190 P. 129, 58 Mont. 1; Kroger v. A. T. Woods, Inc., 31 P.2d 255, 38 N. M. 241; Davis v. Industrial Comm. of Utah, 206 P. 267, 59 Utah 607; Binzel v. Grogan, 29 N.W. 895, 67 Wis. 147; Fleckles v. Hill, 149 N.E. 915, 83 Ind.App. 715; 3 C. J. S., sec. 1, p. 365; American Sumatra Tobacco Corp. v. Tone, 127 Conn. 132, 15 A.2d 80; Great Western Mushroom Co. v. Industrial Comm. of Colo., 103 Colo. 39, 82 P.2d 751; I. A. Boyer v. Miller Hatcheries, 42 F.Supp. 135; Freeman v. State Industrial Accident Comm., 116 Ore. 448, 241 P. 385; Rousch v. Heffelbower, 196 N.W. 185, 225 Mich. 664, 35 A. L. R. 196; Industrial Comm. of State of Colorado v. Shadowen, 187 P. 926, 68 Colo. 69, 13 A. L. R. 952; Peterson v. Farmers' Bank of Eyota, 230 N.W. 124, 180 Minn. 40; Yoshida v. Security Ins. Co. of New Haven, Conn., 26 P.2d 1082, 145 Ore. 325; Harding v. Industrial Comm. of Utah, 28 P.2d 182, 83 Utah 376, 91 A. L. R. 1523; In re Brown, 253 F. 357 (C. C. A. 9th); United States v. Chester C. Fosgate Co., 125 F.2d 775; Cowiche Growers, Inc., v. Bates, 10 Wash. (2d) 585, 117 P.2d 624; North Whittier Weights Citrus Assn. v. National Labor Relations Board, 109 F.2d 76; Krobitsch v. Industrial Accident Comm. of California, 185 P. 396, 181 Cal. 541; Mundell v. Swedlund, 80 P.2d 13; Vincent v. Taylor Brothers, 168 N.Y.S. 287, 180 A.D. 818; Boyer v. Boyer, 227 N.W. 661, 178 Minn. 512; In re Boyer, 117 N.E. 507, 65 Ind.App. 408; Ostrom Mushroom Co. v. Bates (Commerce Clearing House (Washington) Unemployment Insurance Service, Volume 6, p. 50,027); Knaust Brothers, Inc., 36 N. L. R. B. 188 (Prentice Hall Labor Service, p. 15,787). (2) The Legislature intended that the employees of the defendant should be entitled to benefits under the Unemployment Compensation Law. Ruling of Internal Revenue Bureau (S. S. T. 132-(XVI-16-8654)); Ruling of Internal Revenue Bureau (S. S. T. 72-(XVI-3-8491)); Ruling of Internal Revenue, Bureau (S. S. T. 231-(XVI-50-9090)); Ruling of Internal Revenue Bureau (S. S. T. 293-(1938-21-9357)); U.S. Senate Misc. Report III, 76 Congress 1st Series, Calendar No. 793, p. 61-64, Report No. 734; A. J. Meyer & Co. v. Unemployment Compensation Commission, 348 Mo. 147, 152 S.W.2d 184; Sec. 9423 (i) (6), R. S. 1939. (3) The 1941 amendment defining agricultural labor in the Unemployment Compensation Law is not a clarification of the original enactment exempting "agricultural labor." Laws 1941, p. 566; Sec. 9423 (i) (1) (6) (A), Unemployment Compensation Law, Laws 1941, pp. 576-580; 59 C. J., p. 1097, sec. 647; Stover Bank v. Welpman, 323 Mo. 234, 19 S.W.2d 740; Smith v. Equitable Life Assur. Society of United States, 107 S.W.2d 191, 232 Mo.App. 935; 26 U.S.C. A., Sec. 1607 (1), (1), (2), (3), (4); Cowiche Growers, Inc., v. Bates, 10 Wash. (2d) 585, 117 P.2d 624; Unemployment Compensation Comm. v. Valker's Greenhouses, Inc., 70 N.D. 515, 296 N.W. 143; Christgau v. Woodlawn Cemetery Assn., 208 Minn. 263, 293 N.W. 619; Chester C. Fosgate Co. v. United States of America, 125 F.2d 775. (4) The Unemployment Compensation Law should be liberally construed in favor of the employees of the defendant who have and who may become unemployed. A. J. Meyer & Co. v. Unemployment Compensation Comm., 348 Mo. 147, 152 S.W.2d 184; Laws 1941, p. 566; Sec. 9422, Unemployment Compensation Laws, Laws 1941, p. 569; Graves v. Purcell, 337 Mo. 574, 85 S.W.2d 543; Cowiche Growers, Inc., v. Bates, 10 Wash. (2d) 585, 117 P.2d 624; St. Louis Rose Co. v. Unemployment Compensation Comm., 348 Mo. 1153, 159 S.W.2d 249; Kansas City Exposition Driving Park v. Kansas City, 174 Mo. 425, 74 S.W. 979; State ex rel. Van Raalte v. Board of Equalization, City of St. Louis, 256 Mo. 455, 165 S.W. 1047; State ex rel. Mt. Mora Cemetery Assn. v. Casey, 210 Mo. 235, 109 S.W. 1; Fitterer v. Crawford, 157 Mo. 51, 57 S.W. 532, 50 L. R. A. 191; Murphy v. Concordia Publishing House, 348 Mo. 753, 155 S.W.2d 122, 136 A. L. R. 1461; St. Louis Y. M. C. A. v. Gehner, 320 Mo. 1172, 111 S.W.2d 30; St. Louis Y. M. C. A. v. Gehner, 329 Mo. 1007, 47 S.W.2d 776. (5) The lower court erred in assessing costs against the Commission. Murphy v. Limpp, 347 Mo. 249, 147 S.W.2d 420; Hartwig-Dischinger Realty Co. v. Unemployment Compensation Commission, 168 S.W.2d 78.

Gage, Hillix, Hodges & Cowherd for respondent.

(1) In construing the phrase "agricultural labor" as used in the Missouri Unemployment Compensation Law, the court should seek to give effect to the legislative intent in the use of such phrase and in ascertaining that intent the usual rules of construction applicable thereto should be employed. Sec. 9427 (A) (1), R. S. 1939; Sec. 9423 (i) (6) (1), R. S 1939; State ex rel. Lentine v. State Board of Health, 334 Mo. 220, 65 S.W.2d 943; Ex parte Helton, 117 Mo.App. 609, 93 S.W. 913; Appendix to the House and Senate Journal 59, General Assembly, Vol. 2, 1937, p. 27; State ex rel. v. Gordon, 266 Mo. 394, 181 S.W. 1016; In re Bernays' Estate, 344 Mo. 135, 126 S.W.2d 209; State ex rel. Natl. Life Ins. Co. v. Hyde, 292 Mo. 342, 241 S.W. 396; Schott v. Continental Auto. Ins. Underwriters, 326 Mo. 92, 31 S.W.2d 7; A. J. Meyer & Co. v. Unemployment Comp. Comm., 348 Mo. 147, 152 S.W.2d 184; St. Louis Rose Co. v. Unemployment Comp. Comm., 348 Mo. 1153, 159 S.W.2d 249; Appendix to the House and Senate Journal 59, General Assembly, Vol. 2, 1937, p. 39; Sec. 9444, R. S. 1939. (2) During the years 1937, 1938 and 1939 respondent and its employees were engaged in agricultural labor under the Misouri Unemployment Compensation Law in planting, cultivating, raising, harvesting and processing mushrooms grown by it for market, and hence respondent is not liable for the tax under that law which appellant Commission seeks to recover in this case. Sec. 655, R. S. 1939; Hannibal Trust Co. v. Elzea, 315 Mo. 485, 286 S.W. 371; Bellerive Inv. Co. v. Kansas City, 321 Mo. 969, 13 S.W.2d 628; Betz v. Kansas City So. Ry. Co., 314 Mo. 390, 284 S.W. 455; A. J. Meyer & Co. v. Unemployment Comp. Comm., 348 Mo. 147, 152 S.W.2d 184; St. Louis Rose Co. v. Unemployment Comp. Comm., 348, Mo. 1153, 159 S.W.2d 249; United States v. Turner Turpentine Co., 111 F.2d 400; Stuart v. Kleck, C. C. A. 9, 1942 (P-H Unemployment Ins. Service, Par. 36, 126); Fromm Bros., Inc., v. United States, 35 F.Supp. 145; Davis v. Industrial Comm. of Utah, 59 Utah 607, 206 P. 267; Melendez v. Johns, 51 Ariz. 331, 76 P.2d 1163; Bucher v. American Fruit Growers Co., 107 Pa.Super. 399, 163 A. 33; Sylcord v. Horn, 179 Iowa 936, 162 N.W. 249; Lowe v. North Dakota Workmen's Comp. Bureau, 66 N.D. 246, 264 N.W. 837; Keefover v. Vasey, 112 Neb. 424, 199 N.W. 799; Cook v. Massey, 38 Idaho 264, 220 P. 1088; Gregg v. Mitchell, 166 F. 725; Hill v. Georgia Cas. Co., 45 S.W.2d 566; Henry A. Dreer, Inc., v. Unemployment Comp. Comm., 127 N. J. L. 149, 21 A.2d 690; City of Higbee v. Burgin, 197 Mo.App. 682, 201 S.W. 558; Fleckles v. Hille, 83 Ind.App. 715, 149 N.E. 915; In re Roby, 54 Wyo. 439, 93 P.2d 940; American Sumatra Tobacco Corp. v. Tone, 127 Conn. 132, 15 A.2d 80, affirming Connecticut Superior Court, Hartford County, No. 60813 (C. C. H. Unemployment Ins. Service, Conn., par. 8064); Application of Butler, 258 A.D. 1017, 16 N.Y.S. (2d) 965; Jones v. Gaylord Guernsey Farms, 128 F.2d 1008; Chester C. Fosgate Co. v. United States, 125 F.2d 775; Sec. 3693, R. S. 1939; Stark Bros. Nurseries & Orchards Co., 40 N. L. R. B. No. 221. (3) The determination of whether the 1939 amendment to the Federal Social Security Act or the 1941 amendment to the Missouri Unemployment Compensation Law as applied to the definition of "agricultural labor" were merely clarification of the respective original acts is not essential to a decision in the present case. 26 U.S.C. A. 1607 (c) (1) (53 Stat. 187, as amended Aug. 10, 1939, c. 666, Title VI, Sec. 614, 53 Stat. 1392); Sec. 9423 (i) (6) (A), Laws 1941, p. 572; United States v. Turner Turpentine Co., 111 F.2d 400; Big Wood Canal Co. v. Utah Unemployment Comp. Division, 61 Idaho 247, 100 P.2d 49; In re Daniels Nurserv, Inc., U.S. Dist. Ct., Minn., 1942 (C. C. H. Unemployment Ins. Service, Fed., par. 8995); Cedarburg Fox Farms, Inc. v. Industrial Comm. of Wisconsin, Cir. Ct. of Dane County, 1941, (C. C. H. Unemployment Ins. Service, Wis., par. 8167); Genessee Mountain Fox & Mink Farms, Inc. v. Teets, Colo. Dist. Ct., 1941 (C. C. H. Unemployment Ins. Service, Colo., Par. 1365.03); Henry A. Dreer, Inc. v. Unemployment Comp. Commission, 127 N. J. L. 149, 21 A.2d 690. (4) The...