This is an appeal from a judgment of the superior court affirming an award of the State Bоard of Workmen’s Compensation denying compensation to the plaintiff in error, herеinafter called claimant. The claimant is the widow of a deceased employee of the defendant in error, hereinafter called the employer. There was testimony before the director to the effect that the deceased was the еmployer’s district office and sales manager with headquarters in Jesup, Georgia, and thаt his duties included selling houses and he had authority to hire other salesmen. The employer’s state manager testified that their salesmen applied themselves when and where they thought it best; that they worked late in the evenings; that there was no such thing as being off duty; that they had considerable latitude in their dealings to get around and get the job done, in “selling, talking to somebоdy about a job, working for him and so forth.” On one Saturday evening at about 10 the deceased by prearrangement met one Lahiff at a night club 50 miles, more or less, from Jesup and talked with Lаhiff about Lahiff’s trying to sell some houses for the deceased. Lahiff was in the Army and was prohibitеd by Army regulations from working in other employment without the permission of his superiors, and he did not intеnd to request such permission. The deceased proposed to Lahiff that he talk tо some prospects in the Fort Stewart area and if any sales resulted Lahiff would get $80 and the deceased or some other person would get $20 of the $100 commission on eаch house sold, but Lahiff’s name would not appear on any of the papers in the trаnsaction. Lahiff accepted the proposal but no houses were ever sоld through his efforts. After this conversation between the deceased and Lahiff they visited socially. Lahiff left the night club at about 2:00 a.m., at which time the deceased had not yet left. The deceased was killed *51 later that morning in an accident on a curve in the highway while driving a car furnished him by the employer, presumably as he was returning home from the night club.
The director’s findings оf fact include the following: “Mr. Lahiff was not to become an employee of Modern Homes Construction Company but was merely to have a ‘working arrangement’ with Mr. Pike [the deceased].” The record indicates that the director thought that this fact demanded his conclusion that the deceased was not within the scope of his employment at the timе he met his death, and demanded the denial of compensation. But we are of the opinion that the fact that the deceased did not engage Lahiff as an employee of Modem Homes, but only enlisted his help to sell houses unofficially, does not establish аs a matter of law that the deceased was not within the scope of his employmеnt. The testimony shows that the deceased recruited Lahiff as a “bird dog.” This term is defined in the Merriаm-Webster New International Dictionary (3d Ed. 1961), at p. 220: “Canvasser; especially: one who locates prospects for salesmen.” The question is whether the deceased was acting in furtherance of his employer’s business-selling houses. Selling includes finding prospects.
Employers Liab. Assur. Corp. v. Pruitt,
The director having applied an erroneous legal theory in arriving at the сonclusion that the deceased was not within the scope of his employment at the time of his death, the award must be reversed with direction that the case be remanded to the State Board to make findings of fact and enter an award upon consideration of applicable principles of law.
Crawford W. Long Hospital v. Mitchell,
Judgment reversed with direction.