Swofford v. Industrial Acc. Commission

• Decision Date: 20 November 1953
• Citation: 263 P.2d 129,121 Cal.App.2d 400
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: SWOFFORD v. INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT COMMISSION et al. Civ. 8294.

Page 129

263 P.2d 129

121 Cal.App.2d 400

SWOFFORD v. INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT COMMISSION et al.

Civ. 8294.

District Court of Appeal, Third District, California.

Nov. 20, 1953.

Wadsworth & Souza, Tracy, for petitioner.

Edmund J. Thomas, Jr., T. Groezinger, San Francisco, John J. McFall, Manteca, for respondents.

PEEK, Justice.

Petitioner J. O. Swofford seeks a review of the award of the Commission finding that J. R. Meadows while employed as a truck driver by J. O. Swofford and Hal Swofford, individually and as copartners, sustained an injury arising out of said employment. It is the sole contention of petitioner that the evidence is not sufficient to support the conclusion that the two Swoffords (who were father and son respectively) were acting as co-partners or as joint venturers and that the employment, if any, was between Hal Swofford and the respondent Meadows as an individual.

The Commission in its return sets forth the general rules relative to findings of the Commission when supported by substantial evidence and the general rules relative to the acts and intent of individuals which may be construed as establishing a partnership as distinguished from a formal agreement to so act. In support of such contention the Commission relies upon certain testimony that both of the Swoffords were engaged in the same kind of business in the same general location--the son for a period of several months and the father for several years. Reliance is also placed upon other testimony that when it was found that Hal's (the son) truck was not suitable for hauling beets he and the petitioner together went to the residence of the grower-employer to obtain the use of the latter's truck. According to the son he did not have sufficient finances to rebuild his truck for that purpose, and his father, as his 'mouthpiece', was endeavoring to buy the truck from the grower. Upon the refusal of the grower to sell the truck the father succeeded in negotiating a rental of the same. After further discussion between the two Swoffords the son suggested to the grower that he rent the truck from him on a percentage basis. This was agreed to by all parties. Thereafter the son obtained the services of Meadows as a driver of the grower's truck and the hauling began. The petitioner was using his truck in the same operation at that time and subsequently the son used his own truck in the same work.

A partnership is defined in Corporations Code, section 15006 as an association of two...