Traders & General Ins. Co. v. Ferris, 6762
| Decision Date | 31 March 1958 |
| Docket Number | No. 6762,6762 |
| Citation | 312 S.W.2d 311 |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
| Parties | TRADERS & GENERAL INSURANCE CO., Appellant, v. B. H. FERRIS, Appellee. |
Simpson, Clayton & Fullingim, Amarillo, Chas. H. Dean, Plainview, for appellant.
Ross H. Scott, Dallas, for appellee.
This is a compensation case. One R. C. Woolard was a building contractor and had entered into a contract with Tom and J. D. Clay to build what was to be known as a Magnolia Station. The appellant here had issued to R. C. Woolard a compensation policy. The appellee contracted with Woolard to lay the blocks in the building at the rate of 20 cents per block. Woolard furnished blocks, cement and sand, and the appellee's brother and son mixed the cement, sand, and water. Appellee furnished the help of his brother and son and the only compensation paid them was what appellee gave them. There is no question about the appellee being injured on this job, and the sole question presented here is whether the appellee was an employee of Woolard under the terms of the Workmen's Compensation Act, Vernon's Ann.Civ.St. art. 8306 et seq., or an independent contractor.
Appellee contracted to lay the blocks in the building at the rate of 20 cents per block and to furnish his own help and tools. He was not paid any wages at all other than the 20 cents per block. Woolard never told appellee how many hours to work a day nor what hours to work. Appellee never had any withholding tax held out against him but he paid his own employment tax on what Woolard paid him and reported he was self-employed. Woolard never instructed appellee in the nature of his work as to how he should accomplish the result of laying the blocks except as to the corners and this was when appellee told Woolard the blocks would not come out even and would extend beyond the corner and Woolard told appellee to just cut them off.
So far as actual facts are considered the case of Richards v. Marco Realty Co., 57 Ga.App. 242, 194 S.E. 880 is almost identical with this case as to the facts, and it was there held that the party was an independent contractor.
It is stated in the case of Herndon v. Halliburton Oil Well Cementing Co., Tex.Civ.App., 154 S.W.2d 163, at page 168 (writ refused):
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Continental Ins. Co. v. Wolford
...contractor. Id. 257 S.W. at 524--525. In a case which is factually similar to the case at bar, Traders & General Insurance Co. v. Ferris, 312 S.W.2d 311 (Tex.Civ.App.-Amarillo 1958, writ ref'd), the court followed Shannon, Supra, and reversed and rendered the trial court's judgment for the ......
-
U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Goodson
...S.W.2d 108 (Tex.Civ.App. Dallas 1969, no writ); Travelers Insurance Company v. Brown, supra; Traders & General Insurance Co. v. Ferris, 312 S.W.2d 311 (Tex.Civ.App. Amarillo 1958, writ ref'd). Direction and control with respect to the character of materials and workmanship is entirely consi......
-
Carter v. Ferris
...for B. H. Ferris in a common law negligence action for personal injuries, following a holding by this court (Traders & General Insurance Co. v. Ferris, 312 S.W.2d 311, writ refused) that he was an independent contractor and not an B. H. Ferris, appellee, while engaged in laying construction......
-
Goodnight v. Zurich Ins. Co.
...and nipples that were attached to the poles but this fact alone does not change his status. In Traders & General Ins. Co. v. Ferris, 312 S.W.2d 311 (Tex.Civ.App., Amarillo 1958, writ ref'd), the court held as a matter of law that the furnishing of blocks, cement and sand, by the general bui......