Akard Lbr. Co. v. State Industrial Com.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Akard Lbr. Co. v. State Industrial Com.

1931 OK 145, 298 P. 295, 148 Okla. 218, 1931 Okla. LEXIS 858

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedApril 21, 1931

Docket21900

StatusPublished

This text of 1931 OK 145 (Akard Lbr. Co. v. State Industrial Com.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Oklahoma primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Akard Lbr. Co. v. State Industrial Com., 1931 OK 145, 298 P. 295, 148 Okla. 218, 1931 Okla. LEXIS 858 (Okla. 1931).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an original action in this court to review an award of the State Industrial Commission made in a proceeding wherein John Robert Scott was claimant. The award of the Industrial Commission found claimant was entitled to compensation and that W. S. Barrow was primarily liable and that the Akard Lumber Company was secondarily liable therefor and ordered payment ot such compensation in accordance with its findings of fact.

For the respondent, the State Industrial Commission,- the Attorney General has filed in this cause a confession of error setting forth a lack of evidence to support the finding that the Akard Lumber Company was secondarily liable for compensation to claimant.

We have examined the transcript of the evidence and find no evidence presented therein that the Akard Lumber Company was in any way connected with the business of manufacturing lumber conducted by W. S. Barrow at the time of claimant’s injury except as a purchaser of the part of manufactured product. The evidence clearly shows that the claimant was employed and rendered services for W. S. Barrow only. We therefore conclude that in so far as the findings of fact by the Industrial Commission that the Akard Lumber Company was secondarily liable and the award made rendering it secondarily liable for payment of com *219 pensation are erroneous and should be vacated. W. S. Barrow is not made a petitioner herein and does not complain of the award made against him, and the award in favor of the claimant directing W. S. Barrow to pay the compensation awarded is one of which the petitioner herein cannot complain.

The award of the Industrial Commission as to the Akard Lumber Company’s liability is vacated and as to W. S. Barrow, such award is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

This is an original action in this court to review an award of the State Industrial Commission made in a proceeding wherein John Robert Scott was claimant. The award of the Industrial Commission found claimant was entitled to compensation and that W. S. Barrow was primarily liable and that the Akard Lumber Company was secondarily liable therefor and ordered payment ot such compensation in accordance with its findings of fact.

For the respondent, the State Industrial Commission,- the Attorney General has filed in this cause a confession of error setting forth a lack of evidence to support the finding that the Akard Lumber Company was secondarily liable for compensation to claimant.

We have examined the transcript of the evidence and find no evidence presented therein that the Akard Lumber Company was in any way connected with the business of manufacturing lumber conducted by W. S. Barrow at the time of claimant’s injury except as a purchaser of the part of manufactured product. The evidence clearly shows that the claimant was employed and rendered services for W. S. Barrow only. We therefore conclude that in so far as the findings of fact by the Industrial Commission that the Akard Lumber Company was secondarily liable and the award made rendering it secondarily liable for payment of com *219 pensation are erroneous and should be vacated. W. S. Barrow is not made a petitioner herein and does not complain of the award made against him, and the award in favor of the claimant directing W. S. Barrow to pay the compensation awarded is one of which the petitioner herein cannot complain.

The award of the Industrial Commission as to the Akard Lumber Company’s liability is vacated and as to W. S. Barrow, such award is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1931 OK 145, 298 P. 295, 148 Okla. 218, 1931 Okla. LEXIS 858, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/akard-lbr-co-v-state-industrial-com-okla-1931.