Mitcham v. Singleton
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Broyles, O. J.
1. “Where one performs for another, with the other’s knowledge, a useful service of a character that is usually charged for, and the latter expresses no dissent, or avails himself of the service, a promise to pay the reasonable value of the service is implied.” Douglas v. Stephens, 27 Ga. App. 485, 487 ( 108 S. E. 833 ) ; 6 R. C. L. 587.
2. This is a claim for compensation under the workmen’s compensation act, and the only disputed question in the case is whether the claimant was an employee of the defendant. While the evidence as to his employment was meager and conflicting, it was sufficient to authorize the inference that he was an employee of the defendant, and, the Department of Industrial Relations having made a finding of fact to that effect, that finding is conclusive upon the courts of this State. Travelers Insurance Co. v. Bacon, 30 Ga. App. 728 ( 119 S. E. 458 ).
*458 Decided January 31, 1935. M. Price, for plaintiffs in error. W. F. Mills, contra.
3. Under the foregoing rulings the judge of the superior court did not err in affirming the award of the Department of Industrial Relations in favor of the claimant.
Judgment affirmed.
MacIntyre and Guerry, JJ., concur.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 8 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
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.