Case Name: MIHM v. HUSSEY et al.
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1915-11-10
Citations: 155 N.Y.S. 860
Docket Number: No. 319/150
Parties: MIHM v. HUSSEY et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 155
Pages: 860–861

Head Matter:
MIHM v. HUSSEY et al.
(No. 319/150.)
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.
November 10, 1915.)
Master and Servant <g=^>87%, New, vol. • 16 Key-No. Series—Injuries to Servant—Hazardous Employment—“Warehousing.”
Under Workmen’s Compensation Act (Consol. Laws, c. 67) § 2, group 29, declaring warehousing a hazardous employment, an employé of a wholesale grocery company, which maintained a storage warehouse, is not engaged in warehousing, within the act (section 3, subd. 4), when placing barrels of vinegar therein; for, while the term “warehousing” means the act of placing goods 'in a warehouse or the business of receiving goods for storage, Workmen’s Compensation Law, § 3, subd. 5, declares that employment includes employment only in a trade or occupation carried by the employer for pecuniary gain.
[Ed. Note.—For other definitions, see Words and Phrases, First Series, Warehousing.]
Kellogg and Howard, JJ., dissenting.
<g^>For other cases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes
Proceeding by William E. Mihm for compensation, under the Workmen’s Compensation Law, against William H. Hussey, employer, and the Commercial Casualty Company, insurer. On question certified by the State Industrial Commission. Question answered.
Argued before SMITH, P. J., and KELLOGG, LYON, HOWARD, and WOODWARD, JJ.
Otto- D. Parker, of New York City (Henry Siegrist, of New York City, of counsel), for insurance carrier.
Egburt E. Woodbury, Atty. Gen. (Harold J. Hinman, of Albany, of counsel), for the Commission.
Benjamin Axleroad, of Albany, for claimant.

Opinion:
LYON, J.
The State Industrial Commission has certified to this court the question:
"Was the claimant at the time of the injury engaged in a hazardous employment, within the meaning of the Workmen's Compensation Law, and entitled to compensation as a result of injuries arising out of and in the course of such employment?"
The employer was engaged in the wholesale produce business, with an office at 346 Broadway, Albany, N. Y. In connection with said business, and upon said premises, he maintained a warehouse or place of storage, in which the produce owned by him was kept in storage until sold at wholesale. The claimant was in his employ as shipper, and on the 28th of September, 1914, while tiering barrels of vinegar, weighing about 500 pounds each, in the storehouse, his right hand was pressed against a brick wall, injuring 'the second and third fingers. The Commission has found that the injuries' were accidental, arose in the course of employment, and were without fault of the employé.
The alleged hazardous employment, in which claimant was engaged, is embraced in group 29, which is as follows:
"Milling; manufacture of cereals or cattle food; warehousing; storage; operation of grain elevators." .
The single question, therefore, for decision, is whether the claimant was engaged in the "employment" of "warehousing" at the time he sustained his injuries. Warehousing is defined in the Century Dictionary as:
T. The act of placing goods in a warehouse. 2. The business of receiving goods for storage."
"Employment includes employment only in a trade, business or occupation carried on by the employer for pecuniary gain." Workmen's Compensation Law, § 3, subd. 5.
Claimant's employer was not carrying on the business of warehousing for pecuniary gain; hence the submitted question should be answered in the negative.
SMITH, P. J., and WOODWARD, J., concur.