Simpson v. Hightower
Citation | 57 Ga.App. 577,196 S.E. 210 |
Decision Date | 18 March 1938 |
Docket Number | No. 26593.,26593. |
Court | United States Court of Appeals (Georgia) |
Parties | LOKEY & SIMPSON . v. HIGHTOWER. |
Syllabus by the Court.
The evidence amply supports the finding of the director of the Department of Industrial Relations that the claimant was an employee of Lokey & Simpson and not an independent contractor. It being agreed by counsel for both parties that this was the only question that need be decided in determining whether the evidence was sufficient to authorize the award of compensation to the claimant, it follows that the judge of the superior court did not err, upon appeal, in refusing to set aside the award.
Error from Superior Court, McDuffie County; C. J. Perryman, Judge.
Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Willie Hightower, claimant, opposed by Lokey & Simpson, employer. To review a judgment of the superior court which affirmed an award of the Industrial Commission in claimant's favor, employer brings error.
Affirmed.
T. Reuben Burnside, of Thomson, for plaintiff in error.
Randall Evans, Jr., of Thomson,-for defendant in error.
The Department of Industrial Relations has awarded compensation to Willie High-tower, against Lokey & Simpson, as employer. The defendant excepts to the judgment of the judge of the superior court on appeal affirming the award made by the department. Counsel for both parties agree that the only question for decision is whether the evidence introduced authorized the finding that the claimant was an employee of the defendant. The defendant contends that the claimant was not an employee but an independent con-tractor, and that the evidence authorized no other finding.
It appears from the evidence that Lokey & Simpson, a partnership, composed of Leonard Lokey and E. M. Simpson, was engaged in the sawmill business. The claimant was employed by the defendant as a servant, but shortly before his injury he had a misunderstanding with Lokey and was discharged. Several days later, Simpson contracted with him to cut trees down on a certain tract of land, his compensation to be so much per thousand feet. Simpson, on behalf of the defendant, testified: The claimant testified in part:
In Durham Land Co. v. Kilgore, 56 Ga. App. 785, 786, 194 S.E. 49, 50, it was said:
Settling all conflicts in the evidence in favor of the claimant, as the director has done, it would appear that the defendant employed the claimant, together with another, to fell trees on a certain tract of land, and to saw them into stated lengths; that his compensation was to be so much per thousand feet of the trees sawed; that the defendant pointed out the trees to...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Harris v. City of Chattanooga, Tenn.
...the dimensions the lumber was to be sawed." The employee, however, was an independent contractor. Finally, in Lokey & Simpson v. Hightower, 57 Ga.App. 577, 196 S.E. 210 (1938), the employer directed which trees were to be cut, and in what length. No other evidence of control was offered. Ye......
-
Malcom v. Sudderth
...Workmen's Compensation § 104; Industrial Commission of Colorado v. Hammond, 77 Colo. 414, 236 P. 1006. In Lokey & Simpson v. Hightower, 57 Ga.App. 577, 580, 581, 196 S.E. 210, 212 it is held: 'In the present case, about the only thing that we find left to the discretion of the claimant was ......
-
Barbree v. Shelby Mut. Ins. Co., 39158
...S.E.2d 924. It is not necessary for the claimant to work regular hours in order to be classified as an employee. Lokey & Simpson v. Hightower, 57 Ga.App. 577, 196 S.E. 210. In the instant case there was evidence which would have authorized, though it did not demand, the finding that the def......
-
Cash v. American Sur. Co., 38209
...84 Ga.App. 207, 210, 65 S.E.2d 694. While the deceased did not work regular hours, under authority of Lokey & Simpson v. Hightower, 57 Ga.App. 577, 196 S.E. 210, supra, this is not necessary for him to be classified as an employee.' American Automobile Ins. Co. v. Tanner, 97 Ga.App. 122, 10......