Morse v. New Amsterdam Casualty Co.

Fifth Circuit

Morse v. New Amsterdam Casualty Co.

37 F.2d 100, 1930 U.S. App. LEXIS 2512

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedJanuary 7, 1930

DocketNo. 5558

StatusPublished

This text of 37 F.2d 100 (Morse v. New Amsterdam Casualty Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Morse v. New Amsterdam Casualty Co., 37 F.2d 100, 1930 U.S. App. LEXIS 2512 (5th Cir. 1930).

Pincite

Opinion

FOSTER, Circuit Judge.

Appellee had issued a poliey to the McKnight Grain & Grocery Company, covering claims by their employees, arising under the provisions of the Texas Workmen’s Compensation Law. Article 8309, R. C. S. Texas 1925, defines employee as every person in the service of another, etc., “except one whose employment is not in the nsual course of trade, business, profession or occupation of his employer.” ■

Appellant was injured while’employed by the McKnight Company as a carpenter and engaged in erecting an elevator and bin to he used for the handling of grain. Dealing in grain was part of the McKnight Company’s business. The said company was not engaged in the business of erecting grain elevators and bins, and was doing so in this instance only for their own purposes. For the reasons set forth in a well considered opinion [30 F.(2d) 974], the District Court directed a verdict for appellee at the close of the evidence. While unnecessarily multiplied into eight assignments, the only error complained of is the directing of the verdict.

From the undisputed faets it is plain that appellant was not employed in the usual course of the McKnight Company’s business. Prejudicial error is not shown. Oilmen’s Reciprocal Ass’n v. Gilleland (Tex. Com. App.) 291 S. W. 197.

Affirmed.

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

FOSTER, Circuit Judge.

Appellee had issued a poliey to the McKnight Grain & Grocery Company, covering claims by their employees, arising under the provisions of the Texas Workmen’s Compensation Law. Article 8309, R. C. S. Texas 1925, defines employee as every person in the service of another, etc., “except one whose employment is not in the nsual course of trade, business, profession or occupation of his employer.” ■

Appellant was injured while’employed by the McKnight Company as a carpenter and engaged in erecting an elevator and bin to he used for the handling of grain. Dealing in grain was part of the McKnight Company’s business. The said company was not engaged in the business of erecting grain elevators and bins, and was doing so in this instance only for their own purposes. For the reasons set forth in a well considered opinion [30 F.(2d) 974], the District Court directed a verdict for appellee at the close of the evidence. While unnecessarily multiplied into eight assignments, the only error complained of is the directing of the verdict.

From the undisputed faets it is plain that appellant was not employed in the usual course of the McKnight Company’s business. Prejudicial error is not shown. Oilmen’s Reciprocal Ass’n v. Gilleland (Tex. Com. App.) 291 S. W. 197.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

37 F.2d 100, 1930 U.S. App. LEXIS 2512, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/morse-v-new-amsterdam-casualty-co-ca5-1930.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack