TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Ocean Accident & Guarantee Corp. v. Hodges

OCEAN ACCIDENT & GUARANTEE CORPORATION LIMITED v. HODGES

Ocean Accident & Guarantee Corp. v. Hodges, 130 S.E. 214 (Ga. Ct. App. 1925)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals of Georgia · State Appellate Courts
Decided
November 10, 1925
Docket
No. 16651
Judges
Broyles
Citations
130 S.E. 21434 Ga. App. 5871925 Ga. App. LEXIS 430

Opinion of the Court — Broyles

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Broyles, C. J.

This was a claim arising under the workmen’s compensation act. The only question to be decided is whether Hodges, the deceased, was an employee of the lumber company in question, or whether he was an independent contractor. Upon the hearing of the claim before a member of the industrial commission the evidence showed that Hodges and the lumber company entered into an oral contract, under which Hodges was to cut and haul logs for the company at $5 per thousand feet. He was to furnish the tools, teams, and laborers necessary for the work. His name was put upon the company’s pay-roll, but the names of the men he hired to assist him were not on the pay-roll, he paying them himself. Hodges himself actually did the work of a laborer, cutting down and hauling the logs. Evidence was also adduced (see pages 17, 24, and 33 of the record) which, together with the legal inferences and deductions arising therefrom, authorized a finding that the lumber company retained the right to direct Hodges, not only as to what work he should do, but how he should do it.

The commissioner, therefore, was authorized to find that the relation of master and servant existed between the lumber company and Hodges. See, in this connection, Singer Mfg. Co. v. Rahn, 132 U. S. 518 (1) (33 L. ed. 440); 26 Cyc. 966. It follows that the judge of the superior court did not erf in affirming the judgment and award of the commissioner.

Judgment affirmed.

Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 12 cases

View all citing references →
1927: 11929: 11930: 11932: 21934: 11938: 11946: 11953: 21958: 11980: 119272026peak 1932 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Liberty Lumber Co. v. Silas175 S.E. 265 (Ga. Ct. App. 1934)
  2. Cooper v. Dixie Construction Co.165 S.E. 152 (Ga. Ct. App. 1932)
  3. Davis v. Starrett Bros.147 S.E. 530 (Ga. Ct. App. 1929)
  4. Maryland Casualty Co. v. Radney139 S.E. 832 (Ga. Ct. App. 1927)
  5. Malcom v. Sudderth106 S.E.2d 367 (Ga. Ct. App. 1958)
  6. Love Lumber Co. v. Thigpen155 S.E. 77 (Ga. Ct. App. 1930)

Most recent

  1. Harris v. City of Chattanooga, Tenn.507 F. Supp. 365 (N.D. Ga. 1980)
  2. Malcom v. Sudderth106 S.E.2d 367 (Ga. Ct. App. 1958)
  3. Burnett v. King77 S.E.2d 772 (Ga. Ct. App. 1953)
  4. Alexander-Bland Lumber Co. v. Jenkins75 S.E.2d 355 (Ga. Ct. App. 1953)
  5. Huiet v. Brunswick Pulp & Paper Co.39 S.E.2d 545 (Ga. Ct. App. 1946)
  6. Lokey & Simpson v. Hightower196 S.E. 210 (Ga. Ct. App. 1938)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Singer Mfg. Co. v. Rahn, 132 U.S. 518 (1889) 184

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list