Roberts v. United States Fid. & Guar. Co
| Decision Date | 16 February 1931 |
| Docket Number | No. 20545.,20545. |
| Citation | 42 Ga.App. 668,157 S.E. 537 |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
| Parties | ROBERTS . v. UNITED STATES FIDELITY & GUARANTY CO. et al. |
Rehearing Denied Feb. 28, 1931.
Syllabus by Editorial Staff.
[Ed. Note.—For other definitions of "Commission, " see Words and Phrases.]
Agent was employed to sell products of principal, an oil company, by causing products to be delivered by trucks operated by drivers employed by agent. Principal had right to exercise control over drivers of trucks as to require that they be selected from designated class, and principal instructed drivers to keep trucks clean, and principal reported to agent failures on part of drivers to do work to satisfaction of principal.
[Ed. Note.—For other definitions of "Arising Out of Employment" and "Course of Employment, " see Words and Phrases.]
Error from Superior Court, Irwin County; R. Eve, Judge.
Proceedings under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Mrs. W. A. Roberts for the death of her husband, claimant, opposed by the United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company, insurance carrier, and others. Award of compensation by the Industrial Commission was reversed by the superior court, and claimant brings error.
Reversed.
McDonald & McDonald, of Fitzgerald, for plaintiff in error.
Bryan & Middlebrooks, of Atlanta, for defendants in error.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court.
1. Where a person is employed to sell, by distribution over neighboring territory, the products of the employer, by operating from a plant belonging to the employer, under a contract, terminable at the will of the employer, by which the employee is described as a "commission agent" for the employer, and is to conduct the business under instructions from, and on terms and conditions prescribed by, the employer, his compensation being a percentage of the gross receipts from the sales after they have been remitted to the employer, whose property they are, the person so employed is the employer's agent for the sale and distribution of the latter's products.
2. Where an agent is employed under a contract of agency to perform duties which must, from the nature of the business, necessarily be performed by subagents, as where the agent is employed to sell the products of his principal, an oil company, which include gas and oil, by causing the products to bedelivered by trucks operated by drivers employed and paid by the agent, and where the principal has the right to exercise such control over the drivers of the trucks as to see that they perform their...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Texas Co. v. Wheeless
... ... Constitution of the United States, as well as the Fourteenth ... Section of the Bill ... Co. v. Kent, 3 S.W.2d 414, 271 S.W ... 229; Roberts v. U.S. F. & G. Co., 42 Ga.App. 668, ... 157 S.E. 537; ... ...
-
American Oil Co. v. Wheeless
... ... 176, Laws of 1936; Article 205 of Regulation 90 of United ... States Act of Congress approved June 6, 1933; ... Co. v. Ind. Com., 42 Ariz. 422, 26 P.2d ... 1012; Roberts v. U.S. F. & G. Co., 42 Ga.App. 668, ... 157 S.E. 537; ... ...
-
Sinclair Refining Co. v. Veal
... ... Gulf Refining Co., 157 Ga. 411, 121 S.E ... 242. Roberts v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty ... Co., 42 Ga.App ... ...
-
Sinclair Ref. Co v. Veal
...latter case was affirmed by operation of law in Harris v. Gulf Refining Co., 157 Ga. 411, 121 S. E. 242. Roberts v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 42 Ga. App. 668, 157 S. E. 537, is distinguishable in that it appeared there that the principal had the right to exercise control over t......