Saile v. Joseph Cashier Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Saile v. Joseph Cashier Co.

253 A.D. 848, 1 N.Y.S.2d 351, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8887

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJanuary 12, 1938

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 253 A.D. 848 (Saile v. Joseph Cashier Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Saile v. Joseph Cashier Co., 253 A.D. 848, 1 N.Y.S.2d 351, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8887 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1938).

Pincite

Opinion

Claimant, with two associates, attached shingles to the side of buildings at the agreed price of four dollars per square. There is direct proof that claimant was an employee. Appellant employer furnished all materials, a part of the tools, its foreman directed claimant as to the manner in which the work was to be done and furnished a truck to transport him and his tools from job to job. Claimant was an employee. (Hexamer v. Webb, 101 N. Y. 377; Matter of Beach v. Velzy, 238 id. 100; Matter of Pierce v. Bowen, 247 id. 305.) The fact that claimant received a lump sum for each square is not controlling. (Fancher v. Boston Excelsior Co., 235 N. Y. 272.) Award unanimously affirmed, with costs to the State Industrial Board. Present — Hill, P. J., Rhodes, McNamee, Bliss and Heffernan, JJ.

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

Claimant, with two associates, attached shingles to the side of buildings at the agreed price of four dollars per square. There is direct proof that claimant was an employee. Appellant employer furnished all materials, a part of the tools, its foreman directed claimant as to the manner in which the work was to be done and furnished a truck to transport him and his tools from job to job. Claimant was an employee. (Hexamer v. Webb, 101 N. Y. 377; Matter of Beach v. Velzy, 238 id. 100; Matter of Pierce v. Bowen, 247 id. 305.) The fact that claimant received a lump sum for each square is not controlling. (Fancher v. Boston Excelsior Co., 235 N. Y. 272.) Award unanimously affirmed, with costs to the State Industrial Board. Present — Hill, P. J., Rhodes, McNamee, Bliss and Heffernan, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

253 A.D. 848, 1 N.Y.S.2d 351, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8887, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/saile-v-joseph-cashier-co-nyappdiv-1938.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack