Fiderius v. Buchan Co.

Ohio Court of Appeals

Fiderius v. Buchan Co.

2 Ohio Law. Abs. 501, 1924 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 1746

CourtOhio Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 10, 1924

DocketNo. 5176

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 2 Ohio Law. Abs. 501 (Fiderius v. Buchan Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Fiderius v. Buchan Co., 2 Ohio Law. Abs. 501, 1924 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 1746 (Ohio Ct. App. 1924).

Pincite

Opinion

LEVINE, J.

Epitomized Opinion

Published Only in Ohio Law Abstract

Original action in the Municipal Court of Cleveland wherein Leonard A. Fiderius was plaintiff and the Buchan Electric Co. was defendant. An . attachment proceeding was brought in the action based on the ground of work and labor performed by plaintiffs for defendant. The services performed by plaintiff were as superintendent of defendant company and his duties consisted of having full charge of hiring and discharging men, of estimating contracts, adjusting disputes and the carrying on of correspondence. He also had charge of supervising the installation of work of purchasing materials. On motion of defendant, the trial court dissolved the attachment. Fiderius thereupon prosecuted error. Held:

To be properly classed as a workman or laborer implies the relationship of employer and employe or that of master and. servant. Fi-derius was not merely acting for the corporation, but he was acting in the place of the corporation and was not subject to the control or orders of anyone. 11819 GC. was enacted for the benefit of workmen or laborers who are subject to the orders of others placed over them. Fiderius did not fall in that category. The judgment of the trial court was correct and is affirmed.

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

LEVINE, J.

Epitomized Opinion

Published Only in Ohio Law Abstract

Original action in the Municipal Court of Cleveland wherein Leonard A. Fiderius was plaintiff and the Buchan Electric Co. was defendant. An . attachment proceeding was brought in the action based on the ground of work and labor performed by plaintiffs for defendant. The services performed by plaintiff were as superintendent of defendant company and his duties consisted of having full charge of hiring and discharging men, of estimating contracts, adjusting disputes and the carrying on of correspondence. He also had charge of supervising the installation of work of purchasing materials. On motion of defendant, the trial court dissolved the attachment. Fiderius thereupon prosecuted error. Held:

To be properly classed as a workman or laborer implies the relationship of employer and employe or that of master and. servant. Fi-derius was not merely acting for the corporation, but he was acting in the place of the corporation and was not subject to the control or orders of anyone. 11819 GC. was enacted for the benefit of workmen or laborers who are subject to the orders of others placed over them. Fiderius did not fall in that category. The judgment of the trial court was correct and is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 Ohio Law. Abs. 501, 1924 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 1746, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fiderius-v-buchan-co-ohioctapp-1924.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack