Summary
In Oatis v. Williamson, et al., 92 So.2d 557, 558, not yet reported in the State Reports, we said: "The burden of proof was upon the claimant to prove facts prerequisite to recovery."
Summary of this case from Franks v. Goyer Co.Opinion
No. 40398.
February 18, 1957.
1. Workmen's compensation — sole question on appeal from denial of compensation claim is whether there was substantial evidence to support Commission's findings.
Sole question on appeal from denial of a workmen's compensation claim is whether there was substantial evidence to support findings of Commission. Sec. 6698-01, et seq., Code 1942.
2. Workmen's compensation — burden of proof on claimant to prove facts requisite to recovery.
Burden of proof was on claimant to prove facts prerequisite to recovery. Sec. 6698-01, et seq., Code 1942.
3. Workmen's compensation — death benefits — claimant at time of injury in logging operations not employee of company.
In proceeding for death benefits under Act, evidence sustained finding that at the time of decedent's injury in logging operations deceased was not an employee of company against whom claim was made, and that the persons for whom decedent was working were not employees of such company. Sec. 6698-01, et seq., Code 1942.
Headnotes as approved by Arrington, J.
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Lamar County; SEBE DALE, Judge.
Hammond Pope, Columbia, for appellant.
I. Tommie Oatis was an employee of Williamson Williamson Lumber Company. Bardwell's Estate v. Perry Timber Co., 222 Miss. 854, 77 So.2d 708; Carr v. Crabtree, 212 Miss. 656, 55 So.2d 408; Carroll v. E.G. Laughlin Sons, 220 Miss. 535, 71 So.2d 461; Kughn v. Rex Drilling Co., 217 Miss. 434, 64 So.2d 582; Marter v. Cathey-Williford-Jones Lumber Co., 225 Miss. 118, 82 So.2d 724; Mills v. Barrett, 213 Miss. 171, 56 So.2d 485; Nelson v. Slay, 216 Miss. 640, 63 So.2d 46; 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's Estate v. A. Deweese Lumber Co., 222 Miss. 833, 77 So.2d 291; Virden Lumber Co. v. Price, 223 Miss. 336, 78 So.2d 157.
M.M. Roberts, Hattiesburg, for appellee.
I. In determining whether a person was an employee or an independent contractor under the Workmen's Compensation Act, the ordinary common-law tests should be applied as in actions of tort. Carr v. Crabtree, 212 Miss. 656, 55 So.2d 408; Kughn v. Rex Drilling Co., 217 Miss. 434, 64 So.2d 582; Nelson v. Slay, 216 Miss. 640, 63 So.2d 46; Simmons v. Cathey-Williford-Jones Lumber Co., 220 Miss. 389, 70 So.2d 847; Stovall's Estate v. A. Deweese Lumber Co., 222 Miss. 833, 77 So.2d 291.
Tommy Oatis, deceased, died from injuries received as a result of a tree falling on him while working for Alton and Jimmy Williamson. The dependents of deceased filed their claim for death benefits under the Mississippi Workmen's Compensation Act against the Williamson Lumber Company, a partnership composed of L.C. Williamson and James Oliver Williamson, and T.H. Mastin Company, its insurance carrier. The attorney-referee denied the claim, which was affirmed by the full commission and the Circuit Court of Lamar County. From this judgment the appellant appeals.
We will not detail the evidence, as a careful examination of the record shows that the appellant failed to establish that the deceased, at the time of his injury on October 18, 1955, was an employee of Williamson and Williamson Lumber Company. Neither does the evidence show that at the time of his injury, Alton and Jimmy Williamson were employees of the said lumber company. Cf. Nelson v. Slay, 216 Miss. 589, 63 So.2d 45.
(Hn 1) The sole question on this appeal is whether there was substantial evidence to support the findings of the commission. (Hn 2) The burden of proof was upon the claimant to prove facts prerequisite to recovery. Ingalls Shipbuilding Corp. v. Howell, 221 Miss. 824, 74 So.2d 863; Smith v. St. Catherine Gravel Co., 220 Miss. 462, 71 So.2d 221.
(Hn 3) We are of the opinion that there was substantial evidence to support the finding of the commission, and under the settled rule of this Court we would not be warranted in setting it aside. Malley v. Over The Top, 90 So.2d 678; Sones v. Southern Lumber Company, 215 Miss. 148, 60 So.2d 582; Barry v. Sanders Co., 211 Miss. 656, 52 So.2d 493; Deemer Lumber Company v. Hamilton, 211 Miss. 673, 52 So.2d 634; Thornton v. Magnolia Textiles, Inc., 55 So.2d 172; Fischer v. Gloster Lumber, etc., Co., 57 So.2d 871; T.H. Mastin Co. v. Mangum, 215 Miss. 454, 61 So.2d 298; Mississippi Products, Inc. v. Gordy, 80 So.2d 793; and Southern Engineering Electrical Co. v. Chester, 83 So.2d 811.
Affirmed.
Roberds, P.J., and Lee, Holmes and Ethridge, JJ., concur.