Postal Telegraph-Cable Co. v. Tucker

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Postal Telegraph-Cable Co. v. Tucker

126 S.E. 860, 33 Ga. App. 525, 1925 Ga. App. LEXIS 569

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedFebruary 28, 1925

Docket15354

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 126 S.E. 860 (Postal Telegraph-Cable Co. v. Tucker) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Postal Telegraph-Cable Co. v. Tucker, 126 S.E. 860, 33 Ga. App. 525, 1925 Ga. App. LEXIS 569 (Ga. Ct. App. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

Stephens, J.

(After stating the foregoing facts.) It appears, from the evidence of the driver of the truck, who was employed by the day, that he, in the discharge of the duties of his employment, went from place to place under the direction of the foreman of the employer, and did everything in accordance with orders given him by the employer, and did nothing of his own volition. The evidence authorizes the inference that the employee was not employed to produce a general result without any interfering directions from the employer, but that the employer retained the right “to direct or control the time and manner of executing the work,” and that therefore the employee, while engaged in operating the truck when the damage sued for occurred, was a servant of the employer and was not an independent contractor.

The verdict for the plaintiff was authorized, and the superior court did not err in overruling the certiorari.

Judgment affirmed.

Jenkins, P. J., and Bell, J., concur.

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

Stephens, J.

(After stating the foregoing facts.) It appears, from the evidence of the driver of the truck, who was employed by the day, that he, in the discharge of the duties of his employment, went from place to place under the direction of the foreman of the employer, and did everything in accordance with orders given him by the employer, and did nothing of his own volition. The evidence authorizes the inference that the employee was not employed to produce a general result without any interfering directions from the employer, but that the employer retained the right “to direct or control the time and manner of executing the work,” and that therefore the employee, while engaged in operating the truck when the damage sued for occurred, was a servant of the employer and was not an independent contractor.

The verdict for the plaintiff was authorized, and the superior court did not err in overruling the certiorari.

Judgment affirmed.

Jenkins, P. J., and Bell, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

126 S.E. 860, 33 Ga. App. 525, 1925 Ga. App. LEXIS 569, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/postal-telegraph-cable-co-v-tucker-gactapp-1925.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack