Opinion ID: 1336014
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Who hired you?

Text: A. I thought I was doing the work for Mrs. Hope Stalvey. Now, from the cross examination: Q. When you put the glass in on May 26, who told you to put it in? A. Nobody. Q. How did you know to put it in? A. I go by Mr. Hardee's office regularly. In lieu of their taking the stand, statements by Mrs. Stalvey and Mr. Smith, were received in evidence. Mrs. Stalvey stated that Mr. Foster Smith contracted with Mr. John Junkins of Hardee Construction Company for our part of the work which included the repair of the wooden framing around the plate glass windows which had rotted and had become infested with termites. In order to repair the wooden frame work, it was necessary to remove the plate glass windows and then put them back. She further stated that she had no recollection of having engaged Hinson to do any work on this building. However, she would not deny having done so. Mr. Smith stated that in addition to changes in building for the convenience of the tenant there was other work that needed to be done that I felt was part of the upkeep of the building and I conferred with Mr. John Junkins of Hardee Construction Company about this additional work and authorized Mr. Junkins to do this work or have it done.    I did not authorize Conway Glass Company to do this work and have no idea as to who did authorize them to do the work.    All of my dealings were with Mr. Junkins of Hardee Construction Company. Before the work was begun, consideration was given to replacing a part of the wooden framing with a brick wall. Mr. Junkins testified that, at Mr. Smith's request, he estimated the cost of each of the two types of construction. At that time he obtained an estimate from Hinson as to the cost of handling the glass and he sought an estimate from another glass company. Junkins disclaimed any responsibility on the part of the construction company for removing the glass, but he did not explain how this necessary procedure was excepted from the contract which he made with Mr. Smith. As to how the glass company came to undertake the work, he testified: Q. And you went to another glass company? Which one did you go to? A. I called them. Q. Which one? A. The Coastal Glass. Q. Do you know what their estimate was? A. They never came to check the building. Q. Did you then contact Conway Glass? A. No. Q. Did Mr. Hinson contact you? A. I am not sure if it was Mr. Hinson or Mr. Stanley working for Mr. Hinson at that time. Q. So the job that Conway Glass and Paint Company did on this particular job was done through Hardee Construction Company, was it not, because you had responsibility of seeing it was done, is that correct? A. No. When Mr. Hinson came over he told me he did work for the Tallevasts and these people had contacted him and if it was all right with me, he would go ahead and do the work. Q. If it was all right with you, he would go ahead and do the work? A. Yes. Q. You are a partner of Hardee Construction Company of Myrtle Beach? A. Yes. Q. You, of course, gave him your consent to do the work? A. Yes. Appellants emphasize the fact that the glass company billed the Tallevast estate for its work and was paid directly by the estate. However, this was done after claimant's accidental injury and is not controlling. We think it more significant that the removal and replacement of the plate glass was part of the work which the construction company undertook to do for the Tallevast estate. The circuit court's finding to this effect is fully supported by the evidence and was not excepted to. It raises a strong inference that the glass company performed the work as subcontractor. We agree with the conclusion below that the evidence which disputes the existence of this relationship does not overcome this natural inference. Affirmed. TAYLOR, C.J., and MOSS, LEWIS and BUSSEY, JJ., concur.