Ainsworth v. Long-Bell Lbr. Company

10 Citing cases

  1. Marshall v. Oliver Electric Manufacturing Co.

    235 So. 2d 244 (Miss. 1970)   Cited 3 times

    Fowler Hereford Farm v. Madden, 207 So.2d 622 (Miss. 1968); Ainsworth v. Long-Bell Lumber Co., 233 Miss. 38, 101 So.2d 100 (1958). However, when the attorney referee abuses his discretion the case will be reversed and reopened before the Commission as was pointed out in Wells-Lamont Corporation v. Watkins, 247 Miss. 379, 387-388, 151 So.2d 600, 604 (1963), where this Court stated as follows:

  2. Crump v. Fields

    251 Miss. 864 (Miss. 1965)   Cited 4 times

    We think that the Commission did not abuse its discretion under the facts of this case in denying the motion. This conclusion is definitely supported by the cases of West Estate v. Southern Bell Telephone Company, 228 Miss. 890, 90 So.2d 1, and Ainsworth v. Long-Bell Lumber Company, et al., 101 So.2d 100."

  3. Boyd v. Crosby Lumber Mfg. Co.

    166 So. 2d 106 (Miss. 1964)   Cited 25 times

    To reach a different result in the case at bar, these several cases would have to be overruled or a distinction would have to be drawn upon such inconsequental circumstances as, in effect, to destroy the established method of doing business throughout the industry. Ainsworth v. Long-Bell Lumber Co., 233 Miss. 38, 101 So.2d 100; Bardwell v. Perry Timber Co., 222 Miss. 854, 77 So.2d 708; Carr v. Crabtree, 212 Miss. 656, 55 So.2d 408; Cook v. Wright, 177 Miss. 644, 171 So. 686; Crosby Lumber Manufacturing Co. v. Durham, 181 Miss. 559, 170 So. 285, 854; E.L. Bruce Co. v. Hampton, 225 Miss. 242, 83 So.2d 101; Employers Insurance Co. of Alabama v. Dean, 227 Miss. 501, 86 So.2d 307; Employers Liability Insurance Co. of Wisconsin v. Haltom Lumber Co., 235 Miss. 74, 108 So.2d 29; Hutchinson-Moore Lumber Co. v. Pittman, 154 Miss. 1, 122 So. 191; Kughn v. Rex Drilling Co., 217 Miss. 434, 64 So.2d 582; McDonald v. Hall-Neely Lumber Co., 165 Miss. 143, 147 So. 315; Marter v. Cathey-Williford-Jones Lumber Co., 225 Miss. 118, 82 So.2d 724; Nickerson v. Patridge, 241 Miss. 40, 128 So.2d 751; Reagan v. Foxworth Veneer Co., 178 Miss. 654, 174 So. 48; Simmons v. Cathey-Williford-Jones Lumber Co., 220 Miss. 389, 70 So.2d 847; Sones v. Southern Lumber Co., 215 Miss. 148, 60 So.2d 582; Stovall v. A. Deweese Lumber Co., 222 Mis

  4. Wells-Lamont Corp. v. Watkins

    151 So. 2d 600 (Miss. 1963)   Cited 18 times
    In Wells-Lamont the claimant announced that she rested her case, expecting the testimony of the doctor who performed her surgery to be presented to the attorney-referee through her employer, who had given notice that it would call the doctor to testify.

    II. Appellee's motions hereinbelow were properly denied. Ainsworth v. Long-Bell Lumber Co., 233 Miss. 38, 101 So.2d 100; Barq's Bottling Co. v. Broussard, 239 Miss. 561, 124 So.2d 294; Dixie Pine Products Co. v. Bryant's Dependents, 228 Miss. 595, 89 So.2d 589; Druey v. Ingalls Shipbuilding Corp., 237 Miss. 277, 113 So.2d 772; Hudgins v. Marine Welding Repair Works, 237 Miss. 301, 114 So.2d 767; Thompson v. Armstrong Cork Co., 230 Miss. 730, 93 So.2d 83; West Estate v. Southern Bell Tel. Tel. Co., 228 Miss. 890, 90 So.2d 1; Sec. 6998-27, Code 1942; Mississippi Workmen's Compensation Commission, Procedural Rule 9 of the Rules and Regulations. Laurel G. Weir, Clayton Lewis, Philadelphia, for appellee.

  5. Barq's Btl. Co. v. Broussard

    124 So. 2d 294 (Miss. 1960)   Cited 5 times

    P.D. Greaves, Gulfport, for appellants. I. Cited and discussed the following authorities: Ainsworth v. Long-Bell Lumber Co., 233 Miss. 38, 101 So.2d 100; Druey v. Ingalls Shipbuilding Corp., 237 Miss. 277, 114 So.2d 772; Hudgins v. Marine Welding Repair Works, 237 Miss. 301, 114 So.2d 767; Jobe v. Capitol Products Corp., 320 S.W.2d 634; Knox v. Georgia-Pacific Plywood Co., 130 A.2d 347; Libby-McNeill Libby v. Alaska Industrial Board, 109 F. Supp. 101; West Estate v. Southern Bell Telephone Co., 228 Miss. 890, 90 So.2d 1; Wilkes Pittman and General Acc. Fire Life Assur. Corp. v. Pittman and Florida Industrial Comm. (Fla.), 92 So.2d 822; Sec. 6998-43, Code 1942; 100 C.J.S., Sec. 385 pp. 149, 150, 151. Walter L. Nixon, Jr., Biloxi, for appellee.

  6. Druey v. Ingalls Shipbuilding Corp.

    114 So. 2d 772 (Miss. 1959)   Cited 12 times
    In Druey v. Ingalls Shipbuilding Corporation, 237 Miss. 277, 114 So.2d 772 (1959), this Court at pages 282-3 said: "The appellants seriously contend that the commission erred in not sustaining their motion to reopen the case for the hearing of further evidence.

    Under all of the facts and circumstances set forth above we respectfully submit the burden was met and the decision of the Commission should be rejected and judgment entered for appellants. Central Electric Power Assn. v. Hicks, 236 Miss. 378, 110 So.2d 351; Goodnite v. Farm Equipment Co., 234 Miss. 342, 103 So.2d 391; Insurance Department of Mississippi v. Dinsmore, 233 Miss. 569, 102 So.2d 691; Lewis v. Trackside Gasoline Station Pacific Indemnity Co., 233 Miss. 663, 103 So.2d 868; Majure v. William H. Alsup Associates, 216 Miss. 607, 63 So.2d 113; Poole v. R.F. Learned Son, 234 Miss. 362, 103 So.2d 396; Russell v. Sohio Southern Pip Lines, Inc., 236 Miss. 722, 112 So.2d 357; 58 Am. Jur., Sec. 255 p. 756; 100 C.J.S., Sec. 513(b) p. 462; 1 Larson's Workmen's Compensation Law, Sec. 38.20 p. 519. II. There was an arbitrary abuse of discretion by the Commission in refusing to reopen the case, and the abuse of this discretion was contrary to the intent and purpose of the Workmen's Compensation Act. Ainsworth v. Long-Bell Lumber Co., 233 Miss. 38, 101 So.2d 100; Central Electric Power Assn. v. Hicks, supra; Ingalls Shipbuilding Corp. v. King, 229 Miss. 871, 92 So.2d 196; Lucedale Veneer Co. v. Rogers, 211 Miss. 613, 53 So.2d 69; Reyer v. Pearl River Tung Co., 219 Miss. 211, 68 So.2d 442; Russell v. Sohio Southern Pipe Lines, Inc., supra; Shivers v. Biloxi-Gulfport Daily Herald, 236 Miss. , 110 So.2d 359; Southern Engineering Electric Co. v. Chester, 226 Miss. 136, 83 So.2d 811; Webster Construction Co. v. Bates, 227 Miss. 207, 85 So.2d 795; West Estate v. Southern Bell Tel. Tel. Co., 228 Miss. 890, 90 So.2d 1; Williams v. Vicksburg Wholesale Poultry Co., 233 Miss. 384, 102 So.2d 378; Secs. 6998-24, 6998-27, 6998-28 Code 1942; 32 C.J.S., Sec. 1038 p. 1089. White White, Gulfport, for appellees.

  7. Smith v. Container General Corp.

    559 So. 2d 1019 (Miss. 1990)   Cited 24 times
    Finding injury compensable where employee hit a wooden pallet and employer's concrete floor as a result of alcohol-withdrawal syndrome

    It is their position that because Pearly did not establish any loss of wage earning capacity, he failed to present an essential component for a compensable claim and, as such, his claim for benefits was properly denied. They point out that the decision of whether to reopen a case or not is one which is purely discretionary with the Commission and that the Commission's Order will not be reversed absent a clear abuse of discretion. West's Estate v. Southern Bell Telephone and Telegraph Company, 228 Miss. 890, 90 So.2d 1, 2 (1956); Ainsworth v. Long-Bell Lumber Company, 233 Miss. 38, 101 So.2d 100 (1958); Druey v. Ingalls Shipbuilding Corporation, 237 Miss. 277, 114 So.2d 772, 774 (1959). A review of the record reveals that the hearing on this matter was held on August 7, 1984. Pearly's attorney, by letter to the Commission on November 16, 1984, requested that a stipulation be added to the record and informed them that he had "rested their case and [would] now await Judge Thornton's decision."

  8. Brown v. E.L. Bruce Co.

    175 So. 2d 151 (Miss. 1965)   Cited 14 times
    Stating that the various tests enumerated in our previous opinions are simply methods to be used as an aid in determining whether or not the contractor was an employee, an agent, or a person engaged in an entirely different business, the services of which are contracted to another as the services of an independent contractor

    I. The full Commission is the trier of facts; and if the Commission order is supported by substantial evidence, then its order is binding on the appellate courts. Ainsworth v. Long-Bell Lumber Co., 233 Miss. 38, 101 So.2d 100; Malley v. Over The Top, Inc., 229 Miss. 347, 90 So.2d 678; Smith v. St. Catherine Gravel Co., 220 Miss. 462, 71 So.2d 221. II. The relationship between Bruce and Kirby was that of an independent contractor; and with Brown being an employee of Kirby, an independent contractor, there is no liability on Bruce for compensation benefits.

  9. Taylor v. Beasley

    114 So. 2d 775 (Miss. 1959)

    I. The injury to appellant here on January 16, 1956 did not arise in the course of or out of any employment of claimant by appellee Beasley, but arose in the course of and out of his employment by one Steen. Under the undisputed evidence the relationship between Steen and Beasley was that of vendor and purchaser or in the alternative Steen would have been an independent contractor. Ainsworth v. Long-Bell Lumber Co., 233 Miss. 38, 101 So.2d 100; Bardwell's Estate v. Perry Timber Co., 222 Miss. 854, 77 So.2d 708; Carr v. Crabtree, 212 Miss. 656, 55 So.2d 408; Crosby Lumber Manufacturing Co. v. Durham, 181 Miss. 559, 179 So. 285; Durham v. Deemer Lumber Co. (Miss.), 86 So.2d 343; Employers Liability Insurance Co. v. Haltom, 235 Miss. 74, 108 So.2d 29; Green Lumber Co. v. Sullivan, 208 Miss. 651, 45 So.2d 243; Hutchison-Moore Lumber Co. v. Pittman, 154 Miss. 1, 122 So. 191; Nelson v. Slay, 216 Miss. 640, 63 So.2d 46; Simmons v. Cathey-Williford Jones Co., 220 Miss. 289, 70 So.2d 847; Taylor v. Employers Mutual Liability Insurance Co. (La.), 58 So.2d 206; Williams v. George (La.), 15 So.2d 823. II. It is of course immaterial that on other days and on other occasions Taylor had rendered services to Beasley as an employee at the sawmill.

  10. Bush, et al. v. Byrd, Dependents of

    108 So. 2d 211 (Miss. 1959)   Cited 9 times

    Lowell W. Tew, Welch, Gibbes Graves, Laurel, for appellants. I. The deceased, James H. Byrd, was not covered by the Mississippi Workmen's Compensation Act since he was an independent contractor, and not an employee of appellant, A.A. Bush, contractor. Dr. Pepper Bottling Co. v. Chandler, 224 Miss. 256, 79 So.2d 825; Brookhaven Steam Laundry v. Watts, 214 Miss. 569, 59 So.2d 294; Ingalls Shipbuilding Corp. v. Howell, 221 Miss. 824, 74 So.2d 863; Carr v. Crabtree, 212 Miss. 656, 55 So.2d 408; Simmons v. Cathey-Williford Jones Co., 220 Miss. 389, 70 So.2d 847; Stovall v. A. DeWeese Lbr. Co., 222 Miss. 833, 77 So.2d 291; Bardwell v. Perry Timber Co., 222 Miss. 854, 77 So.2d 708; E.L. Bruce Co. v. Hampton, 225 Miss. 242, 83 So.2d 101; Ainsworth v. Long-Bell Lbr. Co., 233 Miss. 38, 101 So.2d 100; Hutchinson-Moore Lbr. Co. v. Pittman, 154 Miss. 1, 122 So. 191; McDonald v. Hall-Neely Lbr. Co., 165 Miss. 143, 147 So. 315; Cook v. Wright, 177 Miss. 644, 171 So. 686; Cobb v. Vicksburg Hardware Co., 218 Miss. 829, 68 So.2d 98; Wade v. Traxler Gravel Co., 232 Miss. 592, 100 So.2d 103; Lawson v. Traxler Gravel Co., 229 Miss. 159, 90 So.2d 204; Sec. 2(4), Miss. Workmen's Comp. Act; Dunn on Miss. Workmen's Comp., Sec. 75 p. 59; Vol. I, Larson's Workmen's Comp. Law, Sec. 44.20 p. 639. II. The failure of the appellees to conform to the notice provisions of Section 12 and Section 30 of the Mississippi Workmen's Compensation Act precludes recovery of death benefits.