Case Title: Tidwell v. Walden

Citation: 330 S.W.2d 317

Docket Number: 

State: tennessee

Court: Tennessee Supreme Court

Date: 1959-12-11T00:00:00Z

Document:
330 S.W.2d 317 (1959) Shirley Anne TIDWELL et al. v. Ernest WALDEN et al. Supreme Court of Tennessee. December 11, 1959. Griffith & Dossett, LaFollette, for appellants. Troutman & Troutman, LaFollette, for appellees. NEIL, Chief Justice. This is an appeal from the Circuit Court of Campbell County in a workmen's compensation case wherein the trial judge dismissed the plaintiffs' suit. An appeal was prayed and granted to this Court, following the denial of a motion for a new trial. A correct statement of the facts which gave rise to the petition for compensation appears in the appellants' brief, as follows: While petitioners assign a number of errors they collectively raise one issue, to wit, was the deceased an employee of the defendants or a member of the partnership composed of Ernest Walden and others? The trial judge dismissed the petition based upon the following finding of facts: Regrettable as it may be that the dependents of the deceased workman are denied the benefit of his support as provided by our Workmen's Compensation Act, we feel that the evidence supports the finding by the trial court. Contention is made that the alleged partnership, being based upon an oral agreement, should be established "by clear and convincing" evidence. The authorities clearly support this contention. In other words, if the issue is doubtful, it should be resolved in favor of the injured workman. Kamarad v. Parkes, 201 Tenn. 566, 300 S.W.2d 922. But where there is material evidence to sustain the trial judge, his finding is not subject to review on appeal, unless his finding is clearly an error of law. Block Coal & Coke Co. v. Gibson, 199 Tenn. 116, 285 S.W.2d 112, and cases cited therein. The defense interposed in this case that the deceased was a partner in the business was well pleaded, the parties having entered into a bona fide agreement to that effect. We think the evidence shows that it was such an agreement. But for this "mutual-income-producing" organization (the same being so denominated in the last paragraph of the trial judge's finding) the deceased had no opportunity to earn a living for his family. Upon full consideration of the facts, and the argument by counsel in support of the assignments of error, we are constrained to affirm the judgment of the trial court. It is so ordered.