Pelfrey v. Oconee County

• Decision Date: 11 December 1945
• Docket Number: 15787.
• Parties: PELFREY v. OCONEE COUNTY.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

36 S.E.2d 297

207 S.C. 433

PELFREY v. OCONEE COUNTY.

No. 15787.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

December 11, 1945

R. T. Jaynes, of Walhalla, and Stephen Nettles, of Greenville, for appellant.

W A. Bull and Culbertson & Brown, all of Greenville, for respondent.

STUKES, Justice.

The respondent was employed by the sheriff of Oconee County as his clerk in 1934 and continued in that capacity. The sheriff was regularly re-elected and still holds the office. The operation of the county jail is a part of his duties. In the beginning of the relationship there was no appropriation for the position of clerk and the sheriff paid respondent a small monthly salary, allowed him a commission on taxes collected and also gave him and his wife board and lodging at the jail where respondent also performed some services in assistance of the sheriff in his duties as jailer.

On November 7, 1934, the sheriff appointed respondent a deputy sheriff, in which instrument it was recited that the appointment was pursuant to section 3486 of the Code of 1932 (of the same number in the 1942 Code); further that the appointment was without pay and the tenure of office should be co-terminal with the sheriff's term of office, unless sooner revoked. In accord with the statute the appointment was approved in writing by the presiding Circuit Judge, also on November 7, 1934, and so dated. There was no revocation by the sheriff and no re-appointment by him during his subsequent terms of office.

The testimony of respondent and that of the sheriff are in agreement that the latter instructed the respondent to perform any and all duties designated by the sheriff. Such were clerical in the main and respondent regularly stayed in the sheriff's office, collected taxes and performed the other usual office duties. However, there is much evidence in the record that he frequently did work ordinarily incident to the office of deputy sheriff, served process, went on raids, etc., and the sheriff was in the habit of leaving him in full charge of his office during his absence with express or clearly implied authority to perform any and all duties which arose during the sheriff's absence.

Respondent became interested in fingerprinting for the purpose of the detection of crime (with the sheriff's and county supervisor's knowledge and approval) and took a correspondence course. In 1934 or 1935 he proposed to the supervisor that the latter provide supplies for him in this work and that he would in turn fingerprint all prisoners on the chaingang. Such an agreement was made and the county provided a small amount of materials, costing it about $11.50, and the arrangement continued.

At the beginning of respondent's employment in 1934 he was paid entirely by the sheriff, as has been stated, $25 per month plus a commission on the delinquent taxes collected, and was furnished living quarters and meals at the jail for himself and his wife, and he assisted in the sheriff's jail duties. Beginning in 1936 the General Assembly provided in the county supply act the sum of $600 per annum for the sheriff's clerk, which was paid in monthly installments to respondent upon usual county salary claims. This provision and amount were continued through 1940 and the supply act for 1941 increased the annual salary appropriation to $900, or $75 per month. When the county appropriation was first made in 1936, the sheriff discontinued his former personal payment to respondent of $25 per month but continued to furnish living quarters and meals at the jail for respondent and his wife. During all of this time respondent kept up his fingerprinting activities and made prints of the county prisoners and also obtained fingerprints from objects involved in thievery and other crimes in an effort to identify the perpetrators. As the result of this and his other crime detection activities, he assisted in the prosecution of defendants in the criminal courts and testified in some cases.

On September 29, 1941, respondent was alone in charge of the sheriff's office when a robbery was reported to have occurred at a country store on the night before. The sheriff was away and after respondent closed the office in the afternoon he went in his automobile to the scene of the crime and inspected the cash box, which had been robbed, and determined to take it to the city of Greenville for the photographing of any fingerprints on it. He had no facilities for photographing and enlarging and had often before called upon the expert in the employ of the city for assistance in such identification work, and this practice was known to and approved by the sheriff and other law-enforcement officers. On the way to Greenville, near Easley, at about 9 o'clock that night, a rear tire on respondent's automobile blew out, causing him to lose control of the car which collided with a pole alongside the highway and the crash resulted in severe and permanent injury of respondent.

He made claim before the Industrial Commission for an award of workmen's compensation which was granted for temporary total disability, permanent functional impairment of his broken leg, loss of an eye and for serious bodily, facial and head disfigurement and medical expenses, etc. The amount of the disability award was based upon a monthly wage of $75, in accord with the county appropriation for the salary of the sheriff's clerk and did not include any amount on account of the value of the maintenance of himself and his wife at the jail. Implicit in the findings and award of the Commission, although not expressed, is the conclusion that the accidental injury to respondent arose out of and in the course of his employment.

The county appealed to the Court of Common Pleas upon the sole ground which follows: 'That the award of the Commission is erroneous and should be set aside, and an award made for the defendant on the ground that the claimant's injuries did not arise out of or occur in the course of his employment by the defendant.' The Court concluded that there was evidence before the Commission supporting its finding and award, which were confirmed. The appeal here is upon a single, admirably concise exception, as follows: 'Pelfrey's injuries did not arise out of or occur in the course of his employment by Oconee County.'

The appeal has been interestingly argued, but we think the controlling consideration has been largely overlooked. Appellant principally...