Williams Lumber Co. v. Williams

• Decision Date: 25 November 1924
• Docket Number: 14944.
• Citation: 231 P. 210,104 Okla. 214,1924 OK 1071
• Parties: WILLIAMS LUMBER CO. et al. v. WILLIAMS et al.
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

231 P. 210

104 Okla. 214, 1924 OK 1071

WILLIAMS LUMBER CO. et al. v. WILLIAMS et al.

No. 14944.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

November 25, 1924

Syllabus by the Court.

Where the testimony of claimant before the Industrial Commission shows that his relation to an employing partnership is that of a creditor and employé, such testimony is sufficient to sustain an award of compensation for accidental injury, as against contrary inferences to be drawn from the fact that his father and two of his brothers were members of the partnership, in the absence of substantial evidence tending to show that he was a member of the partnership.

Commissioners' Opinion, Division No. 1.

Original proceedings by the Williams Lumber Company and another against C. R. Williams and another to review an award of the State Industrial Commission, under the Workmen's Compensation Act, to defendant named. Affirmed.

The findings of fact made by the Industrial Commission, and upon which the order now complained of is based, read as follows:

"First. That C. R. Williams was an employé of the Williams Lumber Company on July 27, 1922; was engaged in a hazardous occupation within the meaning of the statute; and that while in the employ of said respondent and in the course of his employment, the claimant received an accidental injury on the 27th day of July, 1922.

Second. That as a result of said injury the claimant suffered the loss of his left foot below the knee.

Third. That the claimant's average wage at the time of his injury was $12 per week."

Upon these findings of fact the Commission based its conclusion that the claimant was entitled to compensation at the rate of $8 per week for a period of 150 weeks, and entered its order in conformity therewith. To vacate this order this proceeding was commenced by United States Casualty Company, the insurance carrier.

Ernest J. Kubeck, of Tulsa, for petitioners.

George F. Short, Atty. Gen., and Baxter Taylor, Asst. Atty. Gen for respondents.

LOGSDON C. (after stating the facts as above).

Two propositions are relied on in the brief of petitioners, which are, in substance: First, that the finding of the State Industrial Commission that the claimant was an employé of the Williams Lumber Company is not sustained by the evidence second, that such finding is contrary to the law as contained in the workmen's compensation statutes of the state.

It appears from the transcript in this case that some time in the year 1919 L. E. Williams, an older brother of the claimant, wanted to purchase and operate certain sawmill properties. It seems that he had about $600, and that his father, C. L. Williams, another brother, H. R. Williams, and a man named Beal, each put in $600 toward the purchase of the property, and L. E. Williams became the manager thereof. It also appears that the claimant, C. R. Williams, put $700 of his money into this business and worked thereafter as a regular hand about the sawmill. It is the contention of the insurance carrier that C. R. Williams was a member of the partnership and not an employé, and that the finding of the Commission that he was an employé is not sustained by the evidence. As to the interest which claimant had in the business his testimony upon the hearing was as follows:

"Q. Who was the owner of this mill? A. I think I have got a brother that has a share in it, and also my father and a fellow by the name of Beal. Q. Did you own any stock in it? A. No, only just deposited this money. I let them use it. Q. Was that a loan to the other members of the firm? A. That is the way I considered it. A. Then when you drew this out was it drawn as wages? A. No, sir Q. When you drew $2 a day? A. That was as wages."

On cross-examination he testified:

"Q. When you put your money into this mill, did you expect to get your part of the profit if you made any? A. Nothing ever said about that. I was to draw so much interest on the money I put in there. Whenever I got ready to draw my money out, when I quit the job, I would draw interest up to the date I took my money out. * * * Q. How much interest did you get? A. Eight per cent. Q. Did you consider you owned that interest in the mill? A. No, sir. Only this way; I thought if the mill burned, or anything like that, that I could still hold my agreement to draw my money. Q. If they lost the mill, you would get your money back whether they got theirs or not? A. Yes, sir."

The testimony further shows that the claimant began working immediately after the property was purchased, and that he continued to work as a...