Zurich Gen. Accident & Liab. Ins. Co v. Lee, (No. 17394.)

• Decision Date: 20 December 1926
• Docket Number: (No. 17394.)
• Citation: 136 S.E. 173,36 Ga.App. 248
• Parties: ZURICH GENERAL ACCIDENT & LIABILITY INS. CO. et al. v. LEE.
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

36 Ga.App. 248

136 S.E. 173

ZURICH GENERAL ACCIDENT & LIABILITY INS. CO. et al.

v.LEE.

(No. 17394.)

Court of Appeals of Georgia, Division No. 2.

Dec. 20, 1926.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Error from Superior Court, Wilkinson County; Jas. B. Park, Judge.

Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act by W. Henry Lee, employee and claimant, opposed by W. T. Butler, employer, and the Zurich General Accident & Liability Insurance Company, insurer. An award by the Industrial Commission was affirmed by the superior court, and the insurer and employer bring error. Reversed.

Brock, Sparks & Russell, of Macon, for plaintiffs in error.

Victor Davidson, of Irwinton, for defendant in error.

JENKINS, P. J. W. Henry Lee filed a claim for compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act (Laws 1920, p. 167) for injuries alleged to have been sustained in line of duty as an employee of W. T. Butler. He was awarded compensation before the commissioner, and this finding was sustained by the full commission, and by the superior court on appeal.

The only question raised by the rec ord is whether the relationship of master and servant existed between Butler and Lee. It appears, from the evidence, that Butler had previously been operating his own mill in sawing his own timber, but, finding it necessary to give his attention to his farming operations, he contracted with Bridges to take over the machinery and equipment and convert the timber into lumber, at a price of $7.50 per thousand feet. In the record there is nothing to indicate how long the contract was to run, or how much timber was to be converted into lumber. It indisputably appears from the record that Bridges was to hire and fix the compensation of, and had the exclusive right to discharge, all his labor; that he had complete authority and control as to the time, manner, and method of the work provided for by the contract, Butler was to make such advances to Bridges as might be necessary to meet Bridges' pay roll; the advances to be repaid out of the compensation provided by the contract for Bridges. The evidence is clear that Butler simply advanced Bridges the money, and that the hands employed by Bridges were directly paid by him out of such advances made to him. Such advances were all charged to Bridges, and he was responsible for the full amount so. advanced, whether he sawed sufficient lumber to cover the advances at the price agreed upon or not, Butler being responsible for and agreeing to pay only the contract price for the lumber sawed. The claimant was employed by Bridges, and was working at the sawmill operated and controlled by Bridges under his contract at the time of the injury. The findings of the commissioner on the facts of the case were as follows:

"The facts in this case are that W. Henry Lee was employed at a sawmill owned by W. T. Butler and operated by a Mr. Bridges. While engaged in his work he received an injury to his hand, for which he asks compensation. The first part of February Mr. Butler, finding that he was more needed on his farm than at the sawmill, turned the mill over to Mr. Bridges and went to work on his farm. The terms of the contract were that Mr. Butler was to pay the hands for their services and; pay Bridges $7 a thousand for the lumber he sawed. During the time of this contract the hands were paid by Mr. Butler whether Bridges sawed a sufficient amount of lumber or not. Mr. Bridges had the right to discharge and employ his help at...