Shumpert Truck Lines v. Horne, 40097

• Decision Date: 09 April 1956
• Docket Number: No. 40097,40097
• Citation: 86 So.2d 499,227 Miss. 648
• Parties: SHUMPERT TRUCK LINES et al. v. James O'Neal HORNE.
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court

Page 499

86 So.2d 499

227 Miss. 648

SHUMPERT TRUCK LINES et al. v. James O'Neal HORNE.

No. 40097.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

April 9, 1956.

Claude F. Clayton, Tupelo, for appellants.

Adams, Long & Adams, Tupelo, for appellee.

HALL, Justice.

T. R. Shumpert, doing business under the name of Shumpert Truck Lines, is engaged in the business of operating motor freight lines. His main office is in Amory, Mississippi, but he operates between that city and Memphis, Tennessee, and has depots in Starkville, West Point, Okolona and Tupelo, Mississippi. He owns the depot and Tupelo and it is identified by a large sign painted thereon,--'Shumpert Truck Lines'. The depot at Tupelo and all the business in that particular area is in charge of Orgill Harmon. Two trucks are used in connection with the delivery and assembly of incoming and outgoing freight. Both trucks have Shumpert Truck Lines painted thereon. Harmon owns the small truck and Shumpert owns the large truck. All the business is handled by Harmon and as compensation for his services Harmon receives a percentage of all collections for freight both incoming and outgoing. He makes these collections, deducts his commissions, and remits the difference to Shumpert each week. Harmon selects and pays all the helpers, and among these was the claimant James O'Neal Horne who received a salary of $50 per week and devoted his entire time to the business of appellant in and around Tupeolo. Horne had authority to deliver freight and collect for it, signing the receipts in the name of Shumpert Truck Lines by himself. He also had authority to pick up outgoing freight and sign receipts for the same in the same manner. All these receipts and bills of lading were on blanks furnished by Shumpert.

On March 24, 1954, Horne received a serious personal injury while picking up freight and loading it into one of the 59 trailers belonging to Shumpert. He filed a claim for benefits under the Workmen's Compensation Law which was controverted on the ground that both Horne and Harmon were independent contractors and that Shumpert was not liable for the injury. The attorney-referee conducted a hearing at which considerable testimony was taken and he found in favor of the claimant. On appeal his action was affirmed by the full commission, and on appeal from its decision it was also affirmed by the circuit court, from which action Shumpert and his compensation carrier appeal here.

The arrangement between Shumpert and Harmon was all under an oral agreement which had no definite time to run and could be terminated at the will of either. Even a telephone was maintained in the office in the name of Shumpert Truck Lines. We tink it clear that Harmon and his employees were under the absolute control of Shumpert even though he was not daily present and giving orders. Almost identically in point is the case of Gulf Coast Motor Express Co., Inc. v. Diggs, 174 Miss. 650, 165 So. 292, 293, from which we quote as follows: 'The Motor Express Company was a Louisiana corporation engaged in transporting and delivering, as a common carrier for hire, freight by motor-trucks along certain highways, one of which was United States highway 90 from New Orleans to Mobile. The freight was accumulated by the shippers at a depot in the city of New Orleans and there loaded on trucks for various destinations. Couvillon...