*1 Adams, any will not be disturbed. same him she return the to would Jones not to and cases P.2d that the said deed time [and], permission and without his there cited. recorded plain- this until the death of consent after out, is a suit to pointed this As above all times to be at [appellant] tiff Having property. quiet deter- title to real alleged and subject disposition”, as concerning controversy such mined war- by appellant, or was contended property, unnecessary discuss it is de- by appellant and ranty deed executed contentions. respondent purpose of for the livered to respond- with costs to Judgment affirmed her unconditionally the tract conveying rents, profits issues ent. “together sole and [respondent’s] her
thereof as separate deed property”, stated in the PORTER, GIVENS, TAYLOR and by respondent? and contended KEETON, JJ., concur. testified, in sub-
On the trial
stance, warranty he deed and executed the respondent, saying,
then delivered it
“Now, put [warranty you [respondent] that away. keep pass it until away and I
deed] P.2d something show you will have Then you my should have intention was CO. et al. R. SIMPLOT v. J. OHM * * * take it have place. Then No. 7619. yours.” place will be it and the recorded hand, respondent testified in On the other Supreme Court of Idaho. effect, the deed was delivered substance April 7, 1950. appel- any conditions. That
to her without re- not to the deed tell her have
lant did
corded, give could it to him so that she back fact, appellant and
if he called it. flatly other on
respondent contradicted each was, .as whether the deed question any condi- delivered pivotal ques- On that or restrictions.
tions conflict in substantial
tion there
evidence; hence, findings and judgment respondent tract six-acre
awarding the *2 Gwilliam, Nampa appellant. for
Thos. Y. Boise, Smith, respondents. strip at the air E. base sometimes told the B. who up
truckers move their trucks when pile potatoes dumped becoming too high, any instructed them to cut During of the sacks. com- pany also advised the truckers to take bet- empty ter they care of the sacks were being lost. appellant should re- agreed that
It was hauling four cents sack ceive receive he should potatoes; if he continued one cent additional job entire until to work Appellant was to completed. and bear ex- truck furnish own PORTER, his son and a penses He hired thereof. Justice. hauling, in the to assist him Mr. Matson Appellant is a farmer. He does com- *3 per There paid man car. each $4.00 hauling a side line. His truck mercial as appellant as to when hours were no fixed August, In commercial license. bears a quit his work but seven begin should or 1948, Simplot Dehydrat- respondent, R. J. get he could the earliest A.M. was ing Company, hereinafter referred to as o’clock generaly it was closed appellant company, to haul on the air base and engaged the potatoes cars in Mountain o’clock P.M. railroad at five from strip that city. base near Home the air to from paid drafts time Appellant was twenty or other truckers There were fifteen attached were statements to time which to hauling potatoes. in engaged also appeared, substantially, of which on each unloading hauling “contract & the words be hauled potatoes to from The were potatoes cents sack railroad, at four with one arrived as such cars in cars the completed.” job if The cent bonus potatoes were in Home. Mountain appellant due the amount drafts covered dumped They be on the to were sacks. tax, withholding deduction of old strip and the sacks the air-base ground at unemployment compensation benefits age freight compa- cars. to the returned appellant Neither nor his pointed who the cars” contributions. “boss at a ny had company’s the pay- on was, helpers were carried There be unloaded. cars to the out employee of the roll. apparently, principal 1948, was appellant September
On
suggested tests, standing alone,
None of the
accidentally
truck while
his
thrown from
appears
wholly
on the bed
decisive.
sitting
empty
In E. T.
on some
sacks
injury
Scott,
Chapin
personal
v.
at page
Co.
his truck. He received
172, 173,
places of
260 P.
consisting
in two
court
of fractures
listed
important
He most
right leg
“Right
bones
his
the knee.
tests
below
follows:
thereafter,
in
of control
doing
was
able work
as to the mode of
potatoes.
power
for;
continued
discharge;
His son and assistant
contracted
potatoes
job
payment.”
to haul
until the entire
and method of
The chief con-
completed. Appellant
paid
determining
for such
sideration
whether one is
work,
completed
receiving
bonus
appears
of an
contractor
to be
employer
one
for all
hauled.
has
right
cent
whether
of con-
doing
trol as
mode
work con-
injury
for his
Appellant filed a claim
for. Taylor
tracted
v. Blackwell Lumber
Accident Board under the
Industrial
Co., 37 Idaho
322 suffering and acomplished. The fact that a one cent loss of
by it is to be company arbitrarily direction the terminate done under the could not be the representatives employment deprive appellant the of of and and to the satisfaction bonus; itself, change the showing and the facts his how does employer, of the company appellant and serv- rela- of master treated the relationship to that and the supra; Inc., tionship ; appellant In re all Meyer, are indicia that Laub v. ant. 91, P.2d Co., 156 contractor. 66 Idaho Electric General Co., Publishing 190; Times v. Idaho Joslin in con are The facts in this case In Pacific 323; re 242, P.2d S3 56 Idaho relationship existing. flict as to the actual Idaho, 397. 212 P.2d Co., Nat. Life Assur. Accident It was the of the Industrial duty in the facts this case dis- scrutiny A ultimate fact as to Board determine the facts tend to some show closes that appellant employee was an or an whether employer employee; relationship of and the Taylor Black v. and substantial facts other tend while Co., supra. The de well Lumber board contracting prin- relationship of the show appellant; fact adverse to termined this under independent contractor the cipal and being evidence and there substantial relationships. as to such recognized tests board, finding the same of the sustain this by In this court. will disturbed not be company the had “boss” fact that 50, Co., 64 Gragg Cedar Idaho v. Cook designated the cars to be the cars who at quoted page P.2d this court 127 all ordered scattered and who unloaded Knight Younkin, approval from v. 61 up ground; picked from the potatoes to be 456, 459, 612, 105 P.2d as follows: Idaho employee the of the given the directions cases, where “In workmen’s dumping as to ground company at presented by testimony facts trucks; the directions as movement witnesses, otherwise, stipulation are con empty sacks; the un- care of to the appear facts flicting, where rec and of sacks of number determined which, uncontradicted, if would be ord suffi payment fact that hauled; and appealed from, support the order cient to upon so much sack instead be based appeal. on Golay not be reversed it will v. completed price job; being a fixed Stoddard, 1002; P.2d indicate an 60 Idaho tend to Pot all would hand, relationship. Co., Realty On v. Trust 60 Idaho ter provided appellant his 699; Lafferty Transportation fact own Rand v. P.2d paid helpers; engaged 786; P.2d Co., truck 60 Idaho v. Brink Co., that the did direct the Idaho fact Clack Earl H. P.2d dumping; Long Lake 500; Co., of the Lumber Totton details 596.” 97 P.2d quit could not fact *5 Accident wages The order of the Industrial Where earnings a workman’s and denying are piece Board measured on a basis of work and respondents. awarded to specified is affirmed. Costs where there is quantity no of done,
work to be is that of servant, master and HOLDEN, is J., and C. GIVENS and provisions within the of TAYLOR, JJ., concur. Workmen’s Compensation Act.
KEETON, (dissenting). For sustaining view, Justice authorities : this see Am.Jur., para. 141; McKinstry v. facts in this case pertinent The are un- Guy Co., Coal Kan. 225 P. ultimate disputed and the conclusion to be 837; A.L.R. New York Indemnity Co. v. question facts is drawn from the law. Commission, Industrial Accident 80 Cal. claimant was not re- The fact that App. 775; 713, 252 P. Hill, Shay quired any specified quantity of to haul 263, Syl. 2; Kan. 299 P. Vol. Hon- any specified com- within time Compensation, nold on page 208, Workmen’s plete nega- any particular amount work para. 66. an the idea that he was tives performed Much work is in logging, contractor, together with other undis- mining industry and other lines of in which puted testimony proves payment standard is determined arrangement only. an for services had piece quantity performed. work Further, super- maintained a piece employment Such work creates a work, the fact that vision of the relationship of master servant and not piece paid by to be claimant was independent contractor. per- quantity proportion him formed does not make Taylor The case v. Blackwell Lumber Co., 218 P. is not in con- flict with this view and is not an authority fact that claimant em- further denying compensation he're. to assist in the work persons ployed controlling. is not undisputed facts, Under I am of the opinion the claimant entitled four cents price of re- covery, and the disallowance of his measuring the serv- a standard simply claim be reversed. performed. should ices