*1 ing сited, eases above in the order verdicts were reduced as fol- $40,000 lows; $45,000 $15,000; $18,800 $8800; from from from Where, $41,375 $18,000; $85,000 $35,000; $10,000. from from charge as here, prej- there is substantial basis for a no bias plaintiff remittitur, udice and defendant consents to reasonable though complain judgment verdict, cannot is based on a original was v. Skrаinka Con- amount of which excessive. [Dees Co., 8 S. struction plaintiff’s injuries, leg amputated be- As result of his left Plaintiff tween the knee and ankle. claims that is entitled resulting from his limb. recover other conditions the loss of However, injury de- we need not discuss extent of the because judgment fendant not claim as rendеred for amount does that the remaining after remittitur made is excessive. All concur. affirmed. It is so ordered. should be Superior Company Relation of at the Mineral of Missouri
State Indemnity Company (Insurer), (Employer) Constitution v. D. William Dee Becker Edward Relators, Hostetter, J. Judges Appeals. St. Louis Court of J. McCullеn, 743. (2d)W. July 30, One, 1935.
Division *2 A. A. Alexander L. and A. Robertson for relators.
Henry respondents. G. Stoll for seeking original proceeding certiorari, C. This is an HYDE, in the case quash Louis of the St. Court Superior Company Constitution of Jack Mineral Woodruff v. case Indemnity Company, 22918, 70 S. W. 1104. The No. Washington Coun- appeal Circuit Court from *4 ty, Compensation Com- which the Workmen’s reversed award of for life of Woodruff, per for the loss mission to six dollars week finding right was Woodruff was eye. his The commission’s mining working company premises of as an on the the 1929, 3308(a), Revised contractor, that, and under Section Statutes The required compensation. him mining pay company the was and judgment of the circuit сourt Appeals reversed the Court of affirming with to enter directions the cause remanded award. commission’s the Court take the facts from
We must Haid, (2d) 61 W. Mo. Appeals. 1061, ex Sei v. rel. [State 2 Haid, 328 Mo. 950; Dist. No. School ex rel. Consolidated State 790, Cox, Arndt v. 327 Mo. 806; ex rel. 739, (2d) State Becker, Biscuit 1079; Co. v. 38 S. State rel. Union ex W. Thеy therein, are stated as follows: 293 S. 865, engaged corporation, Company, Mineral is “Superior barytes prop- as DeLore mining upon what is known
business company operating Washington County, Missouri, the said erty in by William royalty subject made DeLore to a lease under ... In assigned company. was to said Wоlf, which lease C. city moved of St. Louis and Woodruff left summer of 1930 Greenley, cousin, County joined his Jim Washington where he mining upon under lease to the defendant tiff the land who was Greenley work, the tiff in his and assisted company. Woodruff company; they defendant mined was delivered to the which money fall being between thеm. In the therefor divided received belonging a small house to the defend- 1930 Woodruff moved into with paying rent, without and ant, permitted he where was live upon consent of the defendant entered permission and dug day and mineral thereon until the leased land tiff and other 1932. tiff Woodruff was injury January, in The which mined his royalty and de- mill defendant who retained the hauled to the of the remaining hauling paid over the balance the cost and ducted given were conceded that no orders claimant miner. mine, tiff he should where or how or how much to Woodruff as to long or quit, that Woodruff worked as or when to and when to start neсessary himself furnished the tools chose, and that he as little as he . . . The failed equipment needed for the work. defendant required terms, etc., by Section post printed statement of the right to mine plaintiff’s Statutes and therefore Revised by the terms defendant became fixed under upon property leased . . . which Statutes 1929. The work 13594, Revised of Section mining engaged upon that of the claimant was mining . defendant, . . the usual business carried on injury . . . claimant met with by company, the defendant mining upon premises of the defendant.” his course of provisions Appeals reviewed the stat- rights were, under them follows: that Woоdruff’s utes held with “Plaintiff, therefore, a license to continue had years subject ‘lien to defendant’s on all miner- period of three royalty for the due thereon until the same dug therefrom als taken or Statutes plaintiff Section Revised paid.’ And right possession mineral, of such to the exclusive ore or ex- had ‘the . . . . . royalty paid until he thereon shall be cept the ’ highest cash, price paid market . defend- the then only premises, defendant’s mineral mined ant for like payment tender of payment or the absolute upon such defendant, and, vest possession ore *5 Statutes should the Revised defendant Section after due therein, stating writing provided plaintiff the has notice in ore delivery requiring ready on hand defendant to or mineral same, pay plaintiff days fail for the to within pay five receive and in plaintiff ‘then that event’ thereupon mineral ac- ore or for such
723 may quires mineral, lead or there- аbsolute title to such ore ‘an person any any in manner he upon of the same to dispose choose.5 Appeals as follows: The conclusion of the mining furnish the of a basis contract “Our statutes therefore company and claimant herein the between the defendant licensee, uрon a tiff the defendant’s plaintiff, as mined which mining in the the seems property. The of the ore under facts case mining the a miner to the to us be service defendant to rendered mining being done the company, according the work the of ore subjected being control methods and without to the miner’s own Thе the result of his work. company excepting of the therefore, exercising independent employment under miner, an exercising his skill as a miner statutory regulations, of left en- work, in the of his execution which was prosecution any tirely discretion, as to its exercise or without restriction limitation, in which or as the time in which either as to manner find, therefore, had to be done. We abundant substantial the work findings testimony support Compensa- fact the Workmen’s of of de- tion the claimant rendered his Commission that services independent occupation representing in an fendant the course of only not сompany will of result of his work and accomplished, the claim- as to manner in which it was and that independent in ant case contractor.” instant long only with a conflict. As We are concerned certiorari Appeals of Court does not conflict with some as designated decision legal opinion Court on effect similar Supreme facts, promulgate of law in conflict with Su- does not a rule preme ruling or facts, on the same similar or does not con- Court decisions, principles Supreme travene law stated Court’s right involved, has it the inherent to decide the issues whether its wrong. rulings Haid, ex rel v. be or [State (2d) Eelators cases cite other cases cited.] claim Appeals they Courts which are in conflict with the decision present Appeals Louis Court case. We cannot St. Appeals reach a conflict the several Courts of between certiorari. 790, 38 Cox, 327 Mo. ex rel. Arndt v. [Stаte only change way which court case this can the result reached in a which of Appeals, has been Courts if it decided even Appeals, be conflict with decision of another Court of for the provisions here under the case to certified of Section 6 Amendment of 1884 to Article the Constitution. There is no question this contention here that court has ever ruled the of whether miner, working under the conditions not a stated by mining of the Court of on land owned leased com- contractor so pany, protection as to be within the is an *6 724 is that Compensation Act. The conflict claimed
of the Workmen’s the ruling independent was an contractor under the that Woodruff holding court the of this facts contravenes set out 611; 210, 114 W. S. Louis, Mo. l. c. McGrath St. George Dry Peck Dolph, 192 W. and Coul v. B. Goods Flori v. S. that “an contrac Co., who, exercising independent employment, tor is contracts to being subject according methods, work do without own to to employer, еxcept control as the result of his work.” of his go necessary statutes, as is, course, to to our the Appeals did, relationship between order to determine the contract, they parties clearly, in absence.of written the because the provide relationship between the the сontract and determine the together Boiling parties. putting provisions of Sec down and the 1929, they 13594-13597, provide Statutes in substance tions Revised following the as the contract between owner terms and conditions the owner) miner, (we per and. the owner lessee as refer to both dig land, minerals on the to-wit: mitted to enter and for right dig for mineral The miner have the exclusive to mine and consent, years from date of ^premises on the for three the owner’s subject given dig, if he fails him to enter and forfeiture days, month, except Sundays, work for calendar without ten by owner, except prevented consent оf the when unavoidable 13594.) by (Sec. circumstances or act of the owner. dug The mineral mined shall be the absolute or 13597.) (Sec. of.the land. owner deliver, royalty, opening miner shall at the mouth of
The every business, or the place owner’s nearest at least usual once by owner, if proportionate month demanded the same amount by paid the mineral mined him as other miners royalty or, same of mineral the land if then the none, kind on same paid by lands, pay royalty the value of the miners on nearest 13594.)- (Sec. in cash. dug royalty a lien all for owner shall on minerals have right pay failure to it shall forfeit the to work on the miner’s (Sec. 1359.4.)
land. right The miner shall have the exclusive possession except royalty paid mineral mined by him until he be or tendered highest price paid by the then in cash owner the owner for lands, mined on none, the same kind mineral said or if then the dug highest price paid lands; for such on the upоn nearest owner shall payment or tender ’the have the absolute (See 13595.) mineral. possession of such paid royalty If shall have tendered the miner or its value upon cash, stating a written notice and shall serve owner ready delivery requiring mineral he has amount of owner same, the owner shall dо so within pay for the then to receive and accept and shall, days, five or the miner owner’s failure pay of mineral delivered or offered to specified for the amount acquire such mineral title to dis- him, delivered to absolute *7 any any in manner he choose. pose person the same to (See. 13596.) any is much within proper
“The construction of statute court, opinion this and an province Appeals as of construing’ giving certain and Appeals of the Court of a statute it question by into Certiorari unless' force and effect cannot be called given similar statute this court has in some case on facts same instant case Appeals in definite construction which the Court of Cox, This court refuses follow.” ex rel. Arndt v. to supra.] [State working consent the owner has held one a mine with written estate, property 13593 under Section no interest obtains any he of the ore land which is authоrized to work or Foundry Co. therein mined. & Machine before it is [Springfield says 130 31 that Cole, v. Section 13597 ore 922.] owner, property it is mined is the absolute of the mineral after except to see how there is independent where contractor and the there is an conflict between this court’s definition exрress ruling contract otherwise. [4] of the We fail Court, of an digging mineral, that a miner under the circumstances mining arrangements com therein, on the of a stated contracting dig pany contractor, it independent is as toward an to paid and deliver its mineral its mill at the to’others therefor. to price independent employ seem did exercise an It would that Woodruff means, (independent time, ment of control or to control thereof) according’ agencies ; that he did contract to the work do (without supervision to his own his methods or direction and with subject equipment); own was not and that to control he mining except (the work con company as to the result of his résult being company.mill templated he deliver all of that would working dig years at tiff he could three least two-thirds of each month). work, with result paid He was to be in accordance of his brought mill, namely, for of tiff which at the the amount he рrice mineral, required paid except others for the same that charge, to deliver a as royalty, certain amount without which no mining lessee, obligated company, doubt this case the deliver to the owner of land. there is au the-leased seems that thority jurisdictions holding that ar in other for somеwhat similar rangements do contractor between create relation mining company. the miner and Schneider’s Com Workmen’s [1 Sayre pensation Law, 296; Mfg. Mining Merriweather v. & Co. Haymaker 803; (Ala.), 916; 49 So. (Va.), Crowder v. 178 S. E. see, also, McKinstry Guy (Kan.), 743; Coal Co. 225 Pac. Poss Haynie 127; Lbr. Co. v. (Ga.), Bros. S. E. v. Standard Clifton (Ga.), Const. Co. 312; Cooper E. v. Dixie (Ga.), Lbr. Co. S. certainly never E. has held otherwise. This court (a), 3308, subsection Compensation Act, Section Our Workmen’s provides: “ or about (a) under contract on Any has work done person who ha) am, which operation the usual "business premises his which employer liable there carries be deemеd an on shall subcontractors, their contractor, his this to such chapter premises on employees, injured or killed or about when doing in the usual course his busi- employer while work which is ness.” Therefore, only compensation be liable for a a landowner would dig injury permitted or mine mineral on awаrd, mining land, when on owner business carried usual not'true of the There is no contention this was such mineral. arrangement company which made for Woodruff mine can, course, prescribe its land. A its own company tiff on *8 by complying with Section 13593. This court terms conditions away limit these not or take has also held thаt sections do a otherwise contract the removal landowner to lease his land or Mattier, 41 W. v. of mineral thereform. [Kirk mining company a It is a matter its own whether choice deals system. statutory by with miners contract or some other opinion Appeals, claim Relators also the Court- that by holding not between and the min that the transaction Woodruff ing company sale, with the a sale made conflicts definition of by Co., St. 313 Mo. this court in Loud v. Louis Union Trust quote l. c. Blackstone’s and in other cases which held definition. In view of the fact that this court has never contract, by provided statutes as basis of the rе above mining company lationship a miner on whose between land ore, works, is*a the sale of we cannot interfere cer contract for has because it not opinion tiorari with this might pointed out that it be so held. well difficult holding justify 13597, providing in view of Section that all dug “any owner, absolute is the and thаt intending person (obviously himself), include the miner who unlawfully use, dispose sell or convert to his own remove of, away manner with any or in or conceal such ore or make larceny. guilty mineral” find conflict between the decision St. Louis
We no Court Appeals, Superior Mineral Company, in Woodruff and our de- quashed. Ferguson Bradley, is ordered cisions, writ our GO., concur. foregoing opinion adopted PER C., CURIAM:—The Hyde, judges the court. All concur.