Norwich bulletin., 1917-07-18
COURT UPHoLDS
 COMMISSIONER DONoHUE
Has Dismissed Appeal in Latham and
 Crane Cases.

The supreme court of errors has dismissed the appeal from the award by the compensation commis sioner of the second district, James J. Donohue, In the case of Cora T. Oster- hout vs. Latham and Crane, ct al, and also in the case of Alice May Swanson against the same respondents.
 In advising dismissal of the appeal in the Swanson case Judge Wheeler words his opinion in part as follows:
 The facts essential to the decision of this appeal as found by the com missioner are these:
 The claimant is the widow of An drew s. Swanson, a carpenter, who was employed by the respondents, La than and Crane, building contractors of Willimantic, to work upon the Dem his house in Stafford Springs, for the repair of which the contractors had the contract.
 The contractors agreed as a part of the contract of employment with Swanson and five other employees in- cluding Osterhout similarly employ ed, who lived in or near Willinlantic, that they would pay them in addition to their regular wages their trans each day from Willimantic to Staff ford Springs and return.
 These employees were a t liberty to remain in Stafford Spring and use the 90 cents for board or to return to Willimantic and use it for transporta- tion.
 The contractors arranged with Os- terhout, enc of these workmen, to car ry these employees to and from Staff ford Springs in his own automobile. operated and maintained by him, for the sum of 90 cents a day for each man.
 On this r> ~ticular job the transpor- tation for these men was provided by means of Osterhout's automobile whcih the men used and the 90 cents for each man paid by the contractors to Osterhout and charged to Dennis and later paid by him.
 On December '. 1916. about five o'clock in the afternoon while return ing from their work in Stafford Springs to their homes in Whitman tic, the automobile collided with train at a railroad crossing and Swanson and the other five men in the automobile were killed.
 The contract of employment be tween the decedent and the respond ents required the decedent to work outside of the place of his residence. Willimantic, if his employer should SO desire. And the respondents agreed that while the decedent was at work in Stafford Springs that they, as a part of his contract of employment, would convey the decedent from his home to his work and back to his home each day in an automobile pro- vided by them. The work began when the decedent reached Stafford Springs; the employment began when the de- cedent boarded the automobile at Will limantic and continued during. the trip and during the work and on the return trip to Willimantic. Transportation to and from his work was identical to his employment. hence the employ nent continued during the transporta- tion in the same way as during the work.
 The injury occurring during the transports occurred within the place where the decedent had a right to be and while he was doing some thing identical to his employment be- cause contemplated by it.
 The injury arose in the course of the employment and while the decedent was being transported to his home, consequently the employment was the proximate cause of 1t. It therefore arose out of the employment.
 The commissioner did not err in the matters reserved. The superior court is advised to render its judgment dis missing the appeal. Tn this opinion the other Judges concurred-
 In the decision on the Osterhout case Judge Wheeler says:
 The facts are identical with the companion case. Swanson V Latham and Crane. ct al. The decedent, Os- terhout, was nemploye of the re- spondents and the contract of employ ment with him the same as with Swanson. He stood in a dual rela- ton to Latham and Crane. As the owner of the automobile he was their agent to transport in his own automo- bile Swanson and the other employees including himself, from Wil1imantic to Stafford Springs and back each day for the sum of ninety cents each day for each employe including himself
 As an employe his contEsct of em- ployment during the period of trans portation did not differ in any es- sential from Swanson's and the oth- CT employees. So far the facts dis close Osterhouts case does not diff fer from SwansOn's. The superior court is advised to render it's judg- ment dismissing the appeal. Tn this opinion the other judges concurred.
 In the Osterhout case Commissioner Douohue awarded Mrs Osterhout $S.50 per week for period not to ex- ceed 312 weeks and s10O for funeral expenses.
 Governor Approves Acquisition.