Source: http://masscases.com/cases/sjc/229/229mass193.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 10:09:33+00:00

Document:
Workmen's Compensation Act. Agency, Existence of relation.
warranted that the journeyman at the time of his injury was in the employ of the corporation and was not an independent contractor within the meaning of St. 1911, c. 751, Part III, § 17.
APPEAL to the Superior Court under St. 1911, c. 751, Part III, § 11, as amended by St. 1912, c. 571, § 14, from a decision of the Industrial Accident Board awarding to Frank S. McAllister of Boston, who was alleged to be an employee of the Jordan Marsh Company, a corporation, compensation for an injury sustained by him on September 20, 1916, arising out of and in the course of his employment.
The case was heard by Brown, J. The evidence reported by the arbitration committee and the testimony of the alleged employee before the Industrial Accident Board are described in the opinion.
The judge made a decree in accordance with the decision of the Industrial Accident Board; and the insurer appealed.
E. C. Stone, for the insurer.
F. W. Mansfield & E. R. Mansfield, for the employee.
purchaser's residence and hang the paper. But his name did not appear on the company's pay-roll of employees, as he was paid by the roll at a varying price, with all expenditures for car fares and paste, and received weekly by mail a check for the amount. The terms and mode of payment however are not the decisive test. Morgan v. Smith, 159 Mass. 570, 574. It is whether the employer retained authority to direct and control the work, or had given it to the claimant. Forsyth v. Hooper, 11 Allen 419, 421, 422.
And, although the claimant testified that while at work "he was his own boss," his services manifestly formed part of the company's regular business conducted by itself, and the placing of the paper by his skill and labor enured to its benefit. The time and place of labor were not constant but were determined by the employer as required by the demands of customers. If while the work was in process dissatisfaction arose, or damage was being done, the customer would be obliged to resort not to him but to the company for further directions or redress. It cannot be said on the record as matter of law, that the Industrial Accident Board was not warranted in finding that the parties never intended the claimant should have the absolute right to hang the paper when and as he pleased regardless of any supervision by the company, which alone would be responsible in damages for unperformed or imperfect work; and that whenever and wherever necessary the power to direct what should be done in satisfaction of the purchaser's contract, the parties contemplated and understood, was lodged with, or retained by the company, whose orders given through the foreman the claimant uniformly obeyed and executed. Coughlan v. Cambridge, 166 Mass. 268, 277. Samuelian v. American Tool & Machine Co. 168 Mass. 12. Driscoll v. Towle, 181 Mass. 416, 419. Wakefield v. Boston Coal Co. 197 Mass. 527. Bowie v. Coffin Valve Co. 200 Mass. 571, 577, 578. Clancy's Case, 228 Mass. 316.
The decree awarding compensation should be affirmed. St. 1911, c. 751, Part II, § 1.

References: § 17
 § 11
 § 14
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1