*1 1 SOUTH 2d SERIES Thirty-Seventh Legisla- chapter 24, Acts of <&wkey;361— 5. Master Receiver, servant em- 56, 118, ploying himself (1921) p. Bill No. R. House can ture individual, (Workmen’s sue insurer Complete 2883, compensation Statutes Texas S.art. Compensation Law Ann. [Vernon’s Civ. St. duly held, 1920, carried and the election was 8306-8309]). arts. 1925, declared, under, majority vote, acted company Receiver is named as- Gerhardt v. this court all as found compensation insurance, sured in District, Independent Yorktown School employs suit individual, maintain decision, not W. 197. S. compensation insurer to recover overturned, with this tribu- the law Compensation under Workmen’s nal. (Vernon’s 1925, Law St. arts. 8306- deemed unneces- discussion Further judgment, sary, the trial court’s Master and <&wkey;36l Implied — grant appellants the in- reformed of employment of receiver individual per- they sought against junction 1921 and compensation mits taxes, will be affirmed. (Workmen’s sation insurer Compensation Law and affirmed. Reformed [Vernon’s Ann. Civ. arts. 1925, St. 8306- 8309]). Contract between receiver company and himself as an individual need permit recovery compensa- not be tion from Compensa- under Workmen’s (Vernon’s 1925, tion Law 8306-8309), Ann. Civ. St. arts. et v. INABNIT al. SURETY CO. merely implied. sufficient, Appeals of Texas. Eastland. of Civil Court Sept. 16,1927. 7. Master and servant —Evidence 18, 1927. Denied Nov. compensation case held not to sustain received salary em- <&wkey;346 Compensation and servant 1. Master (Workmen’s Law [Ver- Compensation. that accidents theory expression laws are 8306-8309]). non's Ann. Civ. arts. 1925, St. chargeable of industries. should Evidence, proceeding under Workmen’s Daws, including Compensation Workmen’s Compensation (Vernon’s Law Ann. Civ. St. (Vernon’s Compensation Law Workmen’s
Texas
Ann. Civ. St.
held)
1925,
ing
8308-8309),
arts.
to sustain
find-
1925,
8306-8309), came into
arts.
company
receiver of
received $150
acceptation
monthly
to
ceiver’s
employee
so as
entitled
industrial accidents
economic
broad
sustained as re-
properly be
to overhead ex-
penses
industries.
<&wkey;>265(l),
8. Evidence
'Testimony
ad-
589' —
<&wkey;348 Compensation:
and servant
2. Master
binding
missions of party are
him,
and do
construed.
liberally
raise
merely
issues.
Compensation Laws are reme-
Workmen’s
Testimony
party
raise
and admissions of
are bind-
and should
dial in
ing
fact.
and do
issues of
objects, and should
their
with view
not be
tions
by exceptions and exact defini-
restricted
spirit.
<&wkey;40l
9. Master
re
—Petition
ceiver
to recover
individual
<&wkey;361
and1
3. Master
—Receiver
failing
from insurer
held1 insufficient
al
and become enti
himself
employ
lege
(Work
as employee
receipt
from insurer
to compensation
tled
Law
Compensation
[Vernon’s
men’s
Ann. Civ.
(Workmen’s
[Vernon’s
Law
Compensation
8306-8309]).
St.
arts.
8306-8309]).
arts.
Ann. Civ. St.
Petition
who was named as
Receiver
cover
an individual from
Compensation Law
surer under Workmen's
himself
8306-8309)
(Vernon’s Ann.
arts.
employ
as an individual
and could
held)
allege
failing
specifically
insufficient
petitioner
compensation from
entitled
become
Compensation
(Vernon’s
Law
under Workmen’s
other sum
8306-8309), in absence
arts.
Ann. CSv.
of bad
faith or
inhibitions.
Court,
Appeal from
District
Coun-
Davenport, Judge.
ty; Geo. L.
<&wkey;346
and1 servant
4. Master
—Action
is founded on
workmen’s
Proceeding
Compensation
under Workmen’s
(Workmen's
Law
Inabnit,
by John
of John
Law
arts.
Ann. Civ. St.
[Vernon’s
8306-
Harris-Fisher Oil Com-
8309]).
opposed by
Surety
pany,
the Southern
Com-
compensation under
Action for
pany,
insurer. An award of
(Vernon’s
Ann. Civ. St.
court,
8306-8309),
the district
and the in-
affirmed
appeals.
contract.
and remanded.
but on
surer
Reversed
Key-Numbered Digests
<g^For
Indexes
cases see
KEY-NUMBER
*2
SURETY CO. v.
INABNIT
413
lS.W.(2d)
Dallas,
findings
judge
Bishop,
for
The
trial
of
learned
Horace C.
appellee.
Among
Wright,
Cisco,
findings
of
for
the follow-
Butts &
of
ing:
HICKMAN,
the
the
date of
Prior
to the
J.
during
“That
all the time that the defendant
opinion,
in this
transactions
disclosed
capacity
worked in the
of
for'the said
Company
producing
Oil
Harris-Fisher
McRea and the said Steele he received as com-
county, and the
John pensation
Eastland
oil in
Inabnit was
pumper
per
That,
the
month.
$150
by
receivership
pending
the
after
some
and
the
had been
for
parties
time,
salary
number
of. interested
month.
on a
of
Company
of the
creditors
Harris-Fisher Oil
Surety Company,
appellant,
is-
Southern
reducing
expenses
became interested in
the
of
policy
insurance
of
sued
receivership,
production
the
and as the
on the oil
whereby
company,-
be-
the
the oil
small,
large
lease was
number of the
it
Workmen’s Com-
subscriber under the
came a
approved
by
the
(Yernon’s
pensation
of
state
this
court, that
the defendant John Inabnit would
8306-8309).
1st
On the
estate,
perform
serve as
the duties he
performing during
of
receiver
the
application
1925, upon
was,
September,
of
day
performing
of
then
the
or had been
company,
working
the said oil
time he
of
creditors of
one
L.
the
lease,
the
without additional com-
of
the district court
H. McRea
pensation,
or
way
in
the receiver’s fee
appointed
county duly
the
which
estate had theretofore been
policy
Thereupon
insurance
of
thereof.
the
might
way
in
eliminated.
of Har-
as receiver
McRea
was transferred to
agreement
Under this
Inabnit
the
defendant
said
John
Company.
Oil
continued
appointed
the court
capacity
in
same
the
to work
the
Company,
of the said Harris-Fisher Oil
which
company.
position
Later McRea
as he had
ap-
holds.
That after his said
pointment
resigned
an
en-
order was
the said
continued
Inabnit
previously
such, all the
and labor
discharging
work
he had
him as
tered
and
the
performed,
which was that of
on the
place;
appointing
one
C. Steele
H.
Company lease, receiving
Oil
Harris-Fisher
the
during
appellee continuing
the
receiving.
same
which he had been
capacity.
ceivership
of
Steele
day
December, 1925,
on or about the 23d
of
poli-
appointed
the
After Steele was
and
receiver of the
while
the defendant had
cy
name
written
of
Oil
Harris-Fisher
of Harris-Fisher
on the
resigned,
order
and an
Thereafter Steele
lease
pany
the
owned
said Harris-Fisher Oil Com-
operated
receivership, he,
discharging him,
court was
the
appointing
appellee qualified
entered
”
* * *
injured.
the said John
w.as
as his
successor.
and served in
appoint-
controlling question
of his
from the date
in the case is
ment, up
including,
day
to,
appellee, who,
ap-
cause. After
trial
pointed
this
named as the assured in
protected
of insurance was
sation
as an em-
at-
to him
an indorsement
policy.
transferred
under the terms of the
Counsel
showing
agree
question
impres-
its transfer
“John
tached thereto
Inabnit,
of first
receiver, Harris-Fisher Oil Com- sion. Our
search
authorities
by indorsement,
pany.”
transfer,
passing upon
ques-
be-
closed
the exact
tion, although
principles
at
on November
came effective
noon
we think the
control-
day
December, 1925, appellee ling
disposition
the 22d
the case
well es-
injury
discharging
an
sustained
wfiile
du-
tablished.
[1,2]
ties
his claim
A
He
determination of the
here
presented depends
a'large
which claim
measure
by appellant
ground
adopted
purposes prompting
on the
was denied
view
of the
policy,
an
was the assured in
and not
enactment of the Workmen’s
time, presented
then,
Appellant
due
Laws.
states
He
were enact
his claim
the Industrial
end
to the
that an
ruling might, by becoming
thereunder,
which board
final
Accident
subscriber
June,
liability
made on the 2d
him
under
properly appealed
awarded
be relieved of
to his em
employee protected
ployees,
liability
and that
assumed
policy.
Keeping
purpose
mind,
the terms
insurer.
very naturally
logically
award
conclusion is
liability
board to the district court
ty,
Eastland coun-
reached that
exists
this case.
county
adopt appellant’s
occurred.
We cannot
statement of
legislation.
leading
Trial
without a
case was had
before the court
the
authorities,
jury,
including
Supreme
December
ap-
granting
state, speaking
final
pellee
was rendered
commission in
for 45
cases Millers’
the
Hoover,
Mutual
Co. v.
weeks,
per week,
certain sum
S. W.
and Cook
235
v. Millers’
Indemnity Underwriters,
535, agree
for medical
From this
bills.
peal
duly perfected
has been
to this
Laws
court.
that Workmen’s
came
2d
SERIES
SOUTH
course of his
maintained his
sentative of
ability
faith
in
he,
acting solely
against
receiver and
from
an
ceiver
his
sumes the dual role of individual and receiv
of the estate and its
the Workmen’s
er. We cannot sustain this contention.
n inquiry arises,
ity against him,
versely
the real
mission of
shall notice
rule now
inconsistent in his
the
ly
was the
act
the estate and the creditors
ceiver,
persons
creditors he was the
person,
bor
it.
the estate.
for the benefit of
same duties after
tual
strictly
en
pediments
role of
this contention
employer,
tion
derogation
tected as an
dustries.
i[4,
[3] It is
employment,
receiver,
place
tendency
his
view of
definitions
office,
performed
It
5] But it is
within the
accidents
estate, acting
or unfair
scope
from himself as an
appointment
and
the broad economic
*3
and
and was not the
the estate of which he was receiver.
because
to a liberal rule of
employer, and, making
inhibition or
appellant
laborers created
prevailing prevents
as an
These laws are remedial
and
not void.
receiver is
of common law
urged
had not been a subscriber
was an
either;
briefly.
for the estate.- There is
conceded that
employment,
v.Co.
dealing,
What
urged by appellant,
could not maintain
was decided
as receiver he
our courts
meaning
individual;
benefit
overhead
urged that,
appellee
himself,
action
that
appointment
and
appellee,
occupying
in an
indifferent and
as receiver? Several
continued to
but in
Hoover, supra.
legal impediments
By
creditors. As between tention
legal representative
did create
In the
any suggestion
contracts
appellee,
before
to a
agent
of this
opinion by
such,
case of
individual;
but for the benefit ceiver for
he
no
dealing
exceptions
construction.
to construe
appellee
objects.
thought
thereof, appellee,
its
and in
he,
pumper
if the
very
with their
absence
personal
construed with
the restriction tions
necessarily
he
long
himself as re his services as
estate
common
as
receiver,
Law,
principle
law,
and distinct
dual role
between one
Millers’ Mu
as
legal repre
became
that indus-
before,
nature of
We think
which we We think
accepting
of the in-
impartial
since
contracts
the Com as
the-
appellee, pany
separate
receiver,
receiver,
The ear-
liability prior
accepta-
was the state an
was not
nothing
The la no defense to show that
and
and if of
of bad the
his li
liabil
be in
arose tain
third
have in
them
spir-
dual
law
pro-
any gether,
giv-
im-
the
the As an
ad
ex-
as
its
rights
manual
void at
tract is
tract was shown.
testified,
of
er,
that
receiving
individual. On
testified
er,
he is
issory note,
n ceiver,
against
received
salary
received
pellant
amount;
tain
juries
dividual,
To his
ual,
him
himself
is
An
under
plied
through
tained
er
Another
[6]
not at all
employment
pumper
his
appellee
receiver, paying
appointment. Construing
action for
action
had
owing
appellee
rights against
and its
It
against
to his
receiver,
contract. The
resulting
suit
after his
on account
case,
he did and
law,
himself,
virtue of an
we think it
himself founded
required. Certainly
that,
facts
court that
analogous case, suppose
purchased
appellee
that,
a
it is no
say
Conceding
urged
was not a stockholder in
against
proposition urged
to this estate
which he had
on
seeking
daily wage
substance,
appointment
he
a third
is not
purchase
analogous
was $150
after he
contracted with
upon
appellant
do not show that
that
the note
from tortious
acquired
that
appointment
enforce
he
cross-examination
answer
supports
himself as receiver
receiver for
could maintain a suit
suing
appellee
receiver.
performed
acquired by
as receiver. He further
and the
person
that note from himself
sole
appellee,
his
daily wage. By
there
suing
insurance in evidence
under a contract not
a
enforce
it would
upon tort,
appellee,
is overruled.
for his labor as an
full
$150 month for
No
He was
month,
appointment
and that his entire
the estate which
contractual
performed prior
as receiver he had
benefit of the com-
appellee,
but
to his
this lease.
negligence
appellant prom-
was no
was at
statute
could not
issuance
No
an
a third
note.
negligence.
value
In
was the same
himself as re-
anas
estate
all the work
upon
conclusion of
contract cer-
here is
a
appellant
certainly
suit for
aas
contractual
but
correct,
accrued to
there
and is
long
as
This con-
therefor.
prevents
between
individ-
a
that
Law is
person.
receiv-
wheth-
for in-
obliga-
rights.
pump
virtue
acting
as re-
main-
Har-
case.
time
time
con
con
sus-
had
im-
to-
in-
To
he
it
affirmed.
bar
pointing
reversed and
is entitled to recover
juries.
ruled,
ing appellee’s testimony
case
wrong disposition
original opinion,
for his
accident.
apart
self,
evidence
merely,
as
ing
by
matter
whose
sions
&wkey;Eor oases see same KEY-NUMBER.