« PreviousContinue »
760 Thompson V. Twodot Fertilizer Co.
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
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
.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.).
Industrial Stockmen's Nat. Bank Sutherland
Commission of Colorado (Mont.)
United States Nat. Bank Stolting, In re (Wash.).
(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.)
.1023 Stuart v. Mathews (Okl.)
77 Supancic, State v. (Kan.).
306 Utah Fuel Co. v. Industrial Commission of Superior Court for Kitsap County, Lof
681 gren v. (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
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.)
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.).
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.).
739 Thompson, New Era Milling Co. v. (Okl.). . 486 / Wescoatt, Walsh v. (Wash.)..
(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.]
See End of Index for Tables of Pacific Cases in State Reports
such as Civ. Code, $8 593-602, relative to reROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF SAN ligious corporations.
FRANCISCO V. INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT
7. Religious societies Om 10-Powers of reli
gious corporation construed with reference to
Powers of religious corporation, formed un-
reference to its object.
tion sole being shown, courts take judicial no.
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.
ployment from Compensation Act it must be sion.
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
R. P. Wisecarver, of San Francisco, for
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
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