Silverman v. McMartin

1934 OK 131, 30 P.2d 163, 167 Okla. 417, 1934 Okla. LEXIS 546
CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma
DecidedFebruary 27, 1934
Docket22745
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 1934 OK 131 (Silverman v. McMartin) 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
Silverman v. McMartin, 1934 OK 131, 30 P.2d 163, 167 Okla. 417, 1934 Okla. LEXIS 546 (Okla. 1934).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This original proceeding was begun by tbe petitioner, M. I-I. Silver-man, by the filing of his petition August 20, 1931, to review an award made by the State Industrial Commission to Fred C. McMartin in cause No. 22688, Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. McMartin, 158 Okla. 107, 12 P. (2d) 226.

On the 3rd day of October, 1932, M. H. Silyerman filed a denominated confession of error in which it is stipulated and agreed between M. I-I. Silverman, petitioner, and the respondents, Ered O. McMartin and the State Industrial Commission, that the claimant, Ered C. McMartin, was injured while engaged in performing labor on an oil and gas lease located in Creek county, Olcla., and that the only interest petitioner, M. I-I. Silver-man, ever had in said oil and gas lease was an assignment of a small undivided interest *418 therein as security for certain indebtedness owing him from the assignor of said interest and that the relation of emploj^er and employee never existed between the petitioner and the claimant, Fred C. McMartin; that the respondents, Fred O. McMartin and State Industrial Commission, therefore confess that there was error in the award rendered in this cause against the petitioner, M. H. Silverman, and state that the said award should be vacated as to the petitioner, M. H. Silverman, because as a matter of law the relationship of employer and employee did not exist between said M. II. Silverman and the claimant, Fred C. McMartin.

The petition of M. II. Silverman is therefore granted in this proceeding, the cause remanded to the Industrial Commission with directions in accordance with the above-mentioned confession of error, provided that this order shall in no wise affect the proceedings as to the other persons and corporations affected by said order made by the State Industrial Commission in cause No. £2688.

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

Related

McQueen & Johnson, Inc. v. Morgan
1941 OK 114 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1941)
Pillsbury Flour Mills Co. v. McNeill
1939 OK 437 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1939)
Utley v. Phelan
1934 OK 344 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1934)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1934 OK 131, 30 P.2d 163, 167 Okla. 417, 1934 Okla. LEXIS 546, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/silverman-v-mcmartin-okla-1934.