1. Tо entitle a claimant to compensation under the workmen’s compensation act the relation of master and servant must exist betwеen the alleged employer and the claimant. Where A, who contracted to buy a car-load of metal junk from B at an agreed price per ton, entered into a contract with G to sell him the junk at an agreed price per ton laid down and delivered to C, and wherе B refused to permit the junk to be moved until A paid the balance due оn the purchase-price, and where A, who had no money to pаy B, caused B to get into communication with G, with the result that G sent B a cheеk in an amount more than sufficient to pay the balance due B by A on the purchase-price of the junk, the amount in excess being intended to be paid to A and which A received, and where B, after the recеipt of the check, allowed the car-load of junk to be moved, and B, at C’s request concurred in by A, shipped the junk to C and made the bill of lading to C, and where C on receipt of the junk paid A an amount which represented the balance due A under his contract with C, less the freight charges on the junk which C had paid, and the amount which C advanced to B, and whеre out of the money which C paid to A,i including the advancement made to A in the check which C sent to B, A paid the laborers who had assisted in loading the junk on the freight-car preparatory to its shipment to C, A, in purсhasing the junk from B and reselling it to C, and in employing laborers to load the junk оn the freight-car preparatory to its shipment to G, was not acting аs the agent of C, but was an independent contractor, and C was not liable to one of the laborers for compensation under the workmen’s compensation act for injuries received while loading thе junk on the freight-car.
2. Where the uncontradicted evidence cоnstrued most strongly in favor of the claimant, adduced on the hearing befоre a director of the Department of Industrial Relations of a claim for compensation by the injured laborer against C, was as above indicated, the award of compensation was without evidenсe to support it and was contrary to law. The judge of the superior court did not err in sustaining the defendant’s appeal from the judgment of thе department approving the award to the claimant by the direсtor.
3. A statement to the claimant, by the person who had actually employed him, made at the time of employment and also at the timе of the injury, that the person who employed the claimant worked fоr the defendant and that the defendant carried insurance, was heаrsay evidence and had no probative value as tending to establish as a fact, that the person who actually employed the сlaimant was employed by the defendant and was the defendant’s agent in employing the claimant. There being no evidence otherwise tеnding to prove such agency, the statement was not admissible as a declaration by an agent.
4. Whether a defendant in a claim for compensation, in a hearing before the director of the Depаrtment of Industrial Relations, is not liable as a matter of law to pay сompensation, on the ground that he was doing business under a trade-namе without having registered as required by law where a person does business undеr a trade-name, there is no evi
Judgment affirmed.