rectly in point, none, however, being exact precedents. (1) As to constitutionality: Singer Sewing Machine Co. v. N. J. Commission, 128 N.J.L. 611 ( 27 A.2d 889); Friedman v. American Surety Co., 137 Tex. 149 ( 151 S.W.2d 570). (2) As to "independently established business:" Fuller Brush Co. v. Industrial Commission, 99 Utah, 97 ( 104 P.2d 201, 129 A.L.R. 511); Singer Sewing Machine Co. v. Unemployment Compensation Commission, 167 Or. 142 ( 116 P.2d 744, 138 A.L.R. 1398); 21 Words Phrases, 54. (3) As to construction generally: Strickland v. Natalbany Lumber Co. (La.App.), 200 So. 652; Raines v. N. J. Commission, 129 N.J.L. 28 ( 28 A.2d 46); Unemployment Compensation Commission v. Mathews, 56 Wyo. 479 ( 111 P.2d 111); McGrath v. Pa. Sugar Co., 282 Pa. 265 ( 127 A. 780, 131 A. 926); Pruitt v. Harker, 328 Mo. 1200 ( 43 S.W.2d 769); Simpson v. New Madrid Stave Co., 227 Mo. App. 331 ( 52 S.W.2d 615); Purkable v. Greenland Oil Co., 122 Kan. 720 ( 253 P. 219); Betz v. Industrial Commission, 109 Colo. 385 ( 125 P.2d 958). 3.
See, e.g., Rebisso, Inc. v. Frick, 94 Ohio App. 45, 108 N.E.2d 282 (1952), and Roland v. Lloyd E. Mitchell, Inc., 221 Md. 11, 155 A.2d 691 (1959). We are not persuaded by the defendant's contention that Betz v. Industrial Commission, 109 Colo. 385, 125 P.2d 958 (1942), evidences that the Colorado Supreme Court would include suppliers within the coverage of the statutory employer provisions. In that case the principal employer, which operated a vegetable canning plant, hired the plaintiff's employer to pick up produce from the fields of its growers and deliver it to the principal's loading docks.
The district court, to which the claim was subsequently prosecuted, affirmed the commission's finding, but on a review of its judgment we determined that deceased was an employee of the company, and ordered reversal, with directions that the cause be "remanded to the district court with instructions to return the case to the Industrial Commission for further proceedings" consistent with our expressed views. Betz v. Industrial Com., 109 Colo. 385, 125 P.2d 958. On the second hearing, the commission found that deceased was an employee of the company, but reannounced, "that decedent did not sustain an injury [resulting in his death], arising out of and in the course of his employment," and awarded adversely to claimant.