Page images
[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small]


State, Steele v. (Okl. Cr. App.)..

760 Thompson V. Twodot Fertilizer Co.
State v. Stewart Mont.)
366 (Mont.)

588 State v. Stoy (Kan.). 335 Tiger, Sandlin v. (Okl.).

905 State v. Supancic (Kan.) 306 Tolon v. Johnson (Okl.).

865 State v. Superior Court for Lewis County Torgerson v. Stocke (Mont.)

.1096 (Wash.) 154 Torrey, Daley v. (Mont.)...

782 State, Treadway v. (Okl. Cr. App.). 271 Tower v. Weinrub (Colo.).

. 1115 State v. Urban (Kan.).

77 Town of Uniontown v. Klemgard (Wash.) 853 State, Watson v. (Okl. Cr. App.).

521 Treadway v. State (Okl. Cr. App.).... 271
State, White v. (Okl. Cr. App.).
943 Trull, Bekins v. (Cal. App.)...

State, Whitehead v. (Okl. Cr. App.). 291 Tujague v. Superior Court of City and
State, Williams v. (Okl. Cr. App.). .1118 County of San Francisco (Cal. App.).. 198
State v. Willson (Or.)..

810 Tuloma Oil Co. v. Johantgen (Okl.). 264 State, Wilson v. (Okl. Cr. App.)

279 Turlock Irr. Dist. v. Sierra & San FranState, Wilson v. (Okl. Cr. App.). .1118 cisco Power Co. (Cal. App.).

671 State, Wise v. (Okl. Cr. App.). 930 Turner, Leland v. (Kan.)..

.1061 State, Wright v. (Okl.)...

268 Turner-Tulsa Co. v. H. Schnell & Co. State Bank v. Almira Farmers' Warehouse


918 Co. (Wash.)

817 Twodot' Fertilizer Co., Thompson v. (Mont.) 588 State Bank v. Sheridan County (Mont.)..1097 T. W. & L. 0. Naylor Co. v. Bowman State Board of Equalization, State v. (Okl.) 743 (Idaho)

347 State Industrial Accident Commission, Dragicevic v. (Or.)...

354 Union Cent. Life Ins. Co., Vann v. (Okl.) 484 Steele v. State (Okl. Cr. App.).

760 Union Portland Cement 'Co. v Steel Tank & Pipe Co. of California v. Pa

Morgan cific Fire Extinguisher Co. (Cal. App.).. 978 Union School Dist. No. 2, of Sheridan Coun

County (Utah)...

.1020 Steiwer v. Steiwer (Or.).

359 Stevens, Beaver Brook Resort Co. v. (Colo.) 121 United Eastern Mining Co. v. Hoffman

ty, v. Starrett (Kan.).

324 Stewart v. Board of Education. School

(Ariz.) Dist. No. 2, Stephens County (Okl.). 504

.1099 Stewart, People v. (Cal. App.).

United Negroes Protective Ass'n, City

221 Stewart, State v. (Mont.).

Council of City and County of Denver v. 366

(Colo.) Stille, Hall Hotel Co. v. (Colo.). 125


United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Stocke, Torgerson v. (Mont.).

. 1096

Industrial Stockmen's Nat. Bank Sutherland

Commission of Colorado (Mont.)

(Colo.) 369


United States Nat. Bank Stolting, In re (Wash.).


V. Chappell

(Mont.) Stolting v. Kuykendall (Wash.)

..1084 405 United States Smelting, Refining & Mining Stoy, State v. (Kan.). Street Rys. Advertising Co. v. Olympia

Exploration Co. v. Wallapai Mining & Brewing Co. (Wash.).

Development Co. (Ariz.)

Upton, Showell v. (Utah).

.1023 Stuart v. Mathews (Okl.)

Urban, State v. (Kan.).

77 Supancic, State v. (Kan.).

306 Utah Fuel Co. v. Industrial Commission of Superior Court for Kitsap County, Lof

Utah (Utah)....

681 gren v. (Wash.).

State v. Superior Court of Washington for Valley Lands & Investment Co. v. Killean
Walla Walla County (Wash.)


393 Sumid v. Prescott (Ariz.),


Vandenberg v. Board of Education of Superior Court for Lewis County, State v.

Wichita (Kan.) (Wash.) 154

321 Superior Court in and for Mariposa County,

Vanlandingham v. Newberry (Okl.) 726

Vann v. Union Cent. Life Ins. Co. (Okl.) 484 Gerrior v. (Cal. App.)... 967 Voigt, Burmeister v. (Okl.)..

874 Superior Court of California in and for City

and County of San Francisco, Dowd v. Waddell v. Kapsas Soldiers' Compensation
(Cal. App.)

Board (Kan.)....

77 Superior Court of California in and for So

Waddell's Estate, In re (Wasb.)

822 lano County, Southern Pac. Co. v. (Cal. Waddle y Stafford (Okl.)

853 App.) 952 Wade v. Tacoma (Wash.).

99 Superior Court of City and County of San

Waldo, J. R. Watkins Co. v. (Kan.). Francisco, Tujagne v. (Cal. App.).. 198


Wallapai Mining & Development Co., UnitSuperior Court of Stanislaus County, New

ed States Smelting, Refining & Mining ExPort v. (Cal.)

ploration Co. v. (Ariz.)....

Superior Court of Tulare County, Hobson Walsh y. Wescoatt (Wash.)
v. (Cal. App.)....

160 456 Ward v. Beatrice Creamery Co. (Okl.).

872 Superior Court of Washington for Walla Ware v. People (Colo.)..

123 Walla County, State v. (Wash.). 434 | Warner v. Synnes (Or.)..

362 Sutherland, Stockmen's Nat. Bank V.

Warren, People v. (Cal. App.). (Mont.) 369

.1114 Warren, Robbins v. (Okl.)..

929 Sutphen v. Enking (Idaho)

38 Warshauer-McClure Sheep Co., Ortiz v., Swift & Co., Albersen v. (Kan.).

two cases (Colo.)..

612 Swift & Co. v. Colvert (Okl.).

510 Warshauer-McClure Sheep Co., Sanchez v. Swinson v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co.


612 (Kan.) .1046 Watkins v. Byrnes (Kan.).

. 1048 Synnes, Warner v. (Or.). 362 | Watkins Co. v. Waldo (Kan.).

.1051 Watson v. State (Okl Cr. App.)

521 Tague v. Willis (Okl.).

698 Weathers v. Layton & Forsyth (Okl.)... 750 Talbott, General Motors Acceptance Corpo Webb, Adams v. (Okl.).

878 ration v. (Idaho) 30 Weber, People v. (Cal. App.).

180 Taylor v. Hamilton (Cal.) 656 Wehner v. Wehner (Cal. App.).

458 Teeters, Dyatt v. (Kan.) .1074 Weinrub, Tower v. (Colo.).

1115 Thingan, Alderman v. (Colo.). 620 | Weitzel v. Weitzel (Ariz.)

1106 Thomas v. Mahin (Colo.).

793 Wellston Consol. School Dist, 1. Lincoln Thoinas y. Noel (Okl.).

County, v. Matthews (Okl.).

739 Thompson, New Era Milling Co. v. (Okl.). . 486 / Wescoatt, Walsh v. (Wash.)..

[ocr errors]


(230 P.) Page

Page West Coast Theatres v. Pomona (Cal. Wilson v. State (Okl. Cr. App.).... .1118 App.)

225 Winton, Whitehead Coal & Mining Co. 5. Western Grain Co. v. Beaver Land-Stock


. 509 Co. (Or.).. 103 Wise v. Schimmel (Colo.)

786 Western Reporting & Credit Co., Curtis v. Wise v. State (Okl. Cr. App.)

930 (Idaho) 771 Witham v. Gage (Okl.).

718 Western Union Tel. Co. v. Hankins (Okl.) 857 Wolfe v. Campbell (Okl.).

506 Wewoka Realty & Trust Co., Etna Ins. Wolverton, Parks, Campbell, Findley Motor Co. v. (Ok].) 738 Co. v. (Okl.)

963 Wheeler, Porter v. (Wash.). 640 Wood v. Ferguson (Mont.)

592 White, Ex parte (Okl. Cr. App.)

522 Woodard, Kerber Creek Irr. Dist. v. (Colo.) 807 White v. Kincaid (Okl.).

908 Woodmansee Estate v. Covington (Idaho) 41 White y. McManus (Cal. App.) 472 Woodruff V. Ewald (Wash.)

149 White y. People (Colo.). 614 Woodyard v. Burdett (Okl.).

903 White v. State (Okl. Cr. App.)

913 Wright, St. Louis-San Francisco R. Co. v. White-Dulaney Co., Shoemaker v. (Wash.) 162 (Okl.)

. 1116 Whitehead v. State (Okl. Cr. App.). 291 Wright v. State (Okl.)

268 Whitehead Coal & Mining Co. v. Winton W. T. Rawleigh Co., Freeman v. (Okl.).... 900 (Okl.)

509 Willian v. McCants (Okl.)

730 | Yakima County Horticultural Union y. Williams, McPike Drug Co. v. (Okl.). 904 French (Wash.)..

837 Williams, People v. (Cal. App.). 667 Yancy, Richardson v. (Wash.).

168 Williams v. Smith (Colo.).

395 Yoelin Bros. Mercantile Co., Kinney v. Williams v. State (Okl. Cr. App.) .1118 (Colo.)

127 Willis, Tague v. (Okl.)....

698 Young v. American Can Co. (Wash.). 147 Willman, Lee v. (Wash.).

148 Youngblood v. Consolidated School Dist. Willson, State v. (Or.).. 810 No. 3, Payne County (Okl.).

910 Wilson, Davis v. (Cal. App.).

677 Wilson v. Smith (Cal. App.). 963 Zavala, Largilliere v. (Idaho).

774 Wilson v. State (Okl. Cr. App.).

279 Zecha 'v. Citizens' State Bank (Kan.)...1058


(Cases in which rehearings have been denied, withcut the rendition of a written opinion. since the publication of the original opinions in previous volumes of this Peporter.]

Newman v. Newby, 221 P. 386.
People v. Hale, 222 P. 148.
Westervelt v. McCullough, 221 P. 661.

E. Reinhart Co. v. Oklahoma Gold Mining Co., 226 P. 902.
Holtzman v. Bennett, 229 P. 1095.
Holtzman v. Bennett, 229 P. 1097.
Noyd, Ex parte, 227 P. 1020.
Richmond Machine Corporation v. Bennett, 229 P. 1098.

Andrew v. Gant, 228 P. 1104.
Frazer v. Ardmore, 229 P. 143.

See End of Index for Tables of Pacific Cases in State Reports

[ocr errors]





such as Civ. Code, $8 593-602, relative to reROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF SAN ligious corporations.

COMMISSION et al. (S. F. 11037.)

7. Religious societies Om 10-Powers of reli

gious corporation construed with reference to
(Supreme Court of California. Oct. 22, 1924. objects.
Rehearing Denied Nov. 17, 1924.)

Powers of religious corporation, formed un-
1. Master and servant Ew417(7)–Finding of der Civ. Code, $8 593-602, are construed with
Industrial Commission whether workman was

reference to its object.
employee or independent contractor held con- 8. Evidence 22(2)-Existence of corpora.

tion sole being shown, courts take judicial no.
Whether Workman was employee or inde-

tice that it has rights and duties but not pendent contractor within Workmen's Compen nature thereof. sation Act is question of fact on which judgment of Industrial Commission is conclusive,

Existence of corporation sole being shown, where facts are dispated and becomes question courts take judicial notice that it has civil of law only when there is but one inference rights and duties but not of scope and nature from facts.

thereof. 2. Master and servant 405(2)-Finding 9. Master and servant Cm 405 (2)-Failure of workman shingling roof of parish church was

employer corporation to prove that its civil employee sustained.

rights and duties did not include repairs of Evidence held to sustain finding that work-i

parish church held to justify compensation

award. man shingling roof of parish church was employee and not contractor within Workmen's As contemplated by Workmen's CompensaCompensation Act.

tion Act, § 19(d), failure of Roman Catholic 3. Master and servant Om 417(7)-Conflicts in Archbishop to prove that his civil rights and testimony resolved on side of findings of in- duties as a corporation sole did not include redustrial Commission.

pairs to parish church held to justify compen.

sation award to shingler injured while reIn reviewing testimony before Industrial

pairing roof. Commission any corflict therein must be resolved on side of findings.

In Bank.
4. Master and servant 362--To exclude em Certiorari to Industrial Accident Commis-

ployment from Compensation Act it must be sion.
both casual and not in course of employer's

Proceedings under the Workmen's ComEmployment must be both casual and not pensation Act by Charles Laton Eubanks, in course of business of employer to be exclud-claimant, opposed by the Roman Catholic ed under Workmen's Compensation Act, $ 8c. Archbishop of San Francisco, a corporation

sole, employer. The Industrial Accident 5. Master and servant 403—Burden on em

ployer to show claimant was independent Commission awarded compensation, and the
contractor or work was not in course of em- employer brings certiorari. Aflirmed.
ployer's business.

R. P. Wisecarver, of San Francisco, for
Under Workmen's Compensation Act, $

petitioner. 19(d) burden is on employer to show that com

Warren H. Pillsbury, of San Francisco, for pensation claimant was independent contractor or work was not in course of employer's busi

respondents. ness. 6. Evidence 31-Judicial notice taken of

LAWLOR, J. An award was made by the existence of private corporations created by Industrial Accident Commission in favor of public law.

Charles Laton Eubanks, wbom we shall desCourts will take judicial notice of existence iynate the applicant, and against the Roman of private corporations created by public law | Catholic Archbishop of San Francisco, a cor

For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes
230 P.-1

[ocr errors][ocr errors]


poratior sole, nereinafter referred to as peti- , visions of the Workmen's Compensation, Intioner. The award was in the amount of surance, and Safety Act of 1917.” $583.24, and the additional sum of $20.83

Including the amount of the award accruper week, beginning with the 28th day of December, 1922, and until the termination of final award was made against the petitioner

ing between the first and second decision a the disability of the applicant or the further for $583.24, and the further sum of $20.83 per order of the Commission.

week. On May 15, 1923, the second decision The applicant applied to the Commission

was also amended by the addition of the folfor the adjustment of his claim for compen

lowing: sation based on an injury sustained by him while he was reshingling a roof. It appears

"The work contemplated upon which the emhe is a carpenter by trade, and was engaged ployee was engaged at the time of his injury by the Reverend Albert R. Bandini, a pastor 10 working days and at a labor cost of less than

was to have been completed in not exceeding of the Roman Catholic Church in the coun- $100, and was after the injury to the applicant try territory which extended five miles out actually completed within such period and cost, of the city of Stockton. The headquarters and the applicant's employment was therefore of the pastor were at St. Michael's Church, casual.

Defendant Rev. Fr. Bandini some distance from a chapel at Linden up- was, at and about the time of the aforesaid on which the work was performed. The injury, and the contract of employment, the applicant claimed he worked one full day agent of the employer, but was not himself the the afternoon of the day he was engaged employer and is neither a necessary nor propand the 'forenoon of the following day.

er party to this proceeding." Shortly after 12 o'clock of the second day, in preparing to descend from the roof, the

The record before the Commission upon footing gave way, and he fell about 20 feet

which the findings, amended and additional to the ground striking on his feet. The in- findings, and amended award were based juries he sustained were fractured bones in shows that the applicant, on June 6, 1922, both feet and some injury to the muscles went to the free bureau of employment in and ligaments in the left lower part of the the city of Stockton, and there secured a back. It was found that he is totally dis- shingling job at the said Roman Catholic abled. The pastor was named as defendant chapel at Linden. The pastor discussed with in the application before the Industrial Acci- applicant the proposed job of reshingling, dent Commission. Findings and an award and after the terms were agreed upon he were filed on October 19, 1922, at the first drove him out to the chapel. The applicant bearing, in effect as follows: That the ap- he testified he was to be paid $8 per day;

started work shortly after the noon hour; plicant sustained injury occurring in the course of and arising out of his employment, that it was a repair job, and the entire roof and that the work of reshingling the roof of of the church was to be reshingled, and the the chapel was not contemplated to be com

batten board and the ridge board were to be pleted within 10 working days, the employ- fixed; that the shingles were already at the ment was not casual, and an award of $270.- church and supplied by the pastor; that the 79 was made against the pastor, with the job called for 25,000 shingles; that he supweekly sum of $20.83 until the termination plied his own tools, but that the ladders and of the disability or the further order of the scaffolds were already there; that he unCommission. A petition for rehearing was

derstood the pastor was bossing the job; granted by the Commission, based on the that nothing was said about the total cost of contentions that the employment was casual, the work, nor concerning the number of days that the applicant was an independent con

he was to be employed, nor about retaining tractor, and that there is newly discovered him on the job until it was completed, but evidence. On December 6, 1922, the petition- be until he finished. “Q. Were you not sup

he understood his employment was simply to er was joined as a proper party to the pro- posed to complete the job out there? A. Not ceeding before the Commission upon the ground that he held the legal title to the that I know of; I thought he might fire me

like he did the first man. He started me off property upon which the applicant was em

on the work. I was to roof the church in the ployed at the time of his injury. New evidence was received by the Commission whose regular way. Q. When were you to be paid decision was filed on April 18, 1923, in which week, that is when I expected it"; that the

-every day or once a week? A. Once a it was found that

old shingles had been taken off half the "The employer was at said time a religious roof, and that he was to take off the other corporation sole, and the employee at the time half himself; that about one-half day's work of said injuries was engaged in the repair of of shingling had been done by his predecesthe church building owned by said employer at Linden, Cal., and operated by it for the carrying about 25,000 shingles on the place and more

sor; that the pastor told him there were out of the purposes of the organization of said employer among its parishioners at that point to come; that he could put on about 3,000 and such repair was therefore in the course of in one day; that it would take 1 day to clear the business of the employer, and both the off the shingles, 2 days to fix the ridge board employer and employee were subject to the pro- and the cross, the total number of days be

« PreviousContinue »