Seward v. State Brand Division, 8161
| Decision Date | 30 September 1954 |
| Docket Number | No. 8161,8161 |
| Citation | 274 P.2d 993,75 Idaho 467 |
| Parties | G. J. SEWARD, Claimant and Respondent, v. STATE of Idaho, BRAND DIVISION, Employer, and State Insurance Fund, Surety, Defendants and Appellants. |
| Court | Idaho Supreme Court |
Robert E. Smylie, Atty. Gen., and Glenn A. Coughlan Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellants.
J. Blaine Anderson, Blackfoot, for respondent.
Claimant in a proceeding before the Industrial Accident Board alleged that on September 17, 1952, he received an injury by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment with the Brand Division, State of Idaho; claimed that he was employed by Boyd Summers, Deputy Brand Inspector, at Idaho Falls on the date the accident occurred. Appellants (employer and surety) contend that the stipulated facts on which the order is based establish no liability.
At the time of the accident claimant was, and for several years prior thereto had been, a self employed motor carrier, engaged in hauling livestock for others for hire to and from livestock yards located in Idaho. At various times, while at the livestock yards in furtherance of his own business, claimant had without expecting or receiving any payment or other reward, rendered assistance to the Deputy State Brand Inspector.
At Idaho Falls, on September 17, 1952, claimant, in furtherance of his own business, was present at the stockyard and the Deputy State Brand Inspector, Boyd Summers, said to claimant: 'I've got to work a bunch * * * [meaning that there were cattle brands to be inspected at the time]--how about helping me?' Pursuant to this request claimant rendered assistance to the Deputy Brand Inspector, and while so working received the injury for which compensation is sought.
It was stipulated by the parties:
'That the said Boyd Summers, Deputy Brand Inspector at Idaho Falls, Idaho, at the time of the occurrence heretofore described, or at any other time, did not have any actual authority to employ anyone for the State of Idaho, Brand Division; that the said claimant, at and prior to the occurrence heretofore described, did not have any actual knowledge of this limitation upon Boyd Summers' authority.'
The legal proposition presented for decision and decisive of the controversy is the the question: Was claimant an employee of the Brand Division of the State of Idaho at the time he received the injuries complained of? We hold he was not.
Section 25-1101 I.C. creates a State Brand Board, fixes its duties and compensation. Section 25-1102 I.C. provides for the appointment of a State Brand Inspector who holds office at the pleasure of the State Brand Board.
Section 25-1103 I.C. reads as follows:
'The state brand inspector, with the approval of the state brand board, and within the limits of any appropriation made available for such purposes, shall appoint, fix the compensation, determine the tenure of office, and prescribe the duties and powers of such officers, deputies, and assistants as may be necessary for the performance of the duties of his office, and shall station deputies and assistants in such localities as he shall deem advisable for the performance of his duties and the sheriff and his deputies in the counties of the state shall perform the duties of deputy brand inspectors.'
It thus affirmatively appears that the State Brand Inspector, with the approval of the State Brand Board, and within the limits of any appropriation made available for such purpose may appoint and fix the compensation and prescribe the duties and powers of the deputies and assistants as may be necessary for the performance of the duties of the office. Sections 25-1102 and 25-1103 I.C.
Claimant in this proceeding was never so appointed or employed and does not claim that he was; and it is not contended that the State Brand Inspector provided for in Section 25-1102 I.C. ever had any knowledge of any assistance or aid rendered by claimant to the Deputy Brand Inspectors placed at various stockyards throughout the State.
Claimant did not have either an express oral or written agreement for employment and under the provisions of the code above quoted, the Deputy Brand Inspector at Idaho Falls had no power or authority to employ him, if he did.
Before one can receive compensation for injuries sustained and claimed to have occurred during the course of his employment, it is axiomatic that the relationship of employer and employee must be shown to exist. Section 72-1011 I.C.; Colvin v. Chapman, 190 Okl. 214, 122 P.2d 158; ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jelso v. World Balloon Corp.
...of Arizona, 79 Ariz. 278, 288 P.2d 492 (1955); Edwards v. Hollywood Canteen, 27 Cal.2d 802, 167 P.2d 729 (1946); Seward v. State, 75 Idaho 467, 274 P.2d 993 (1954); Chicago & E.I.R.R. Co. v. Argo, 82 Ill.App. 667 (1898); Bituminous Casualty Co. v. Industrial Commission, 245 Wis. 337, 13 N.W......
-
National Produce Distributors v. Miles & Meyer, Inc.
... ... , demurred to the complaint on the ground it failed to state a cause of action against it. The demurrer was sustained ... ...
-
Kennedy v. Forest
...himself and Forest existed at the time of the accident. See In re Sines, 82 Idaho 527, 530, 356 P.2d 226, 229 (1960); Seward v. State, 75 Idaho 467, 468, 274 P.2d The Commission concluded that an employment relationship existed between Forest and Kennedy based upon an implied contract of hi......
-
Sines' Estate, In re
...one can become the employee of another, the knowledge and consent of the employer, express or implied, is required. Seward v. State Brand Division, 75 Idaho 467, 274 P.2d 993. An award of compensation depends on the existence of employer-employee relationship. Moon v. Ervin, 64 Idaho 464, 1......