Zachos v. Huiet
Supreme Court of Georgia
1Opinion of the Court
Reid, Chief Justice.
Unless Brown, Wood, Pyles, and Gabbert were employees within the meaning of the Georgia' unemployment compensation law, Zachos did not owe the contribution sued for; for, without the four named, he did not for the year 1940 have the required number of employees to bring him under the provisions of the act. -The preceding statement discloses all the evidence bearing on the question as to whether- they were employees. In our judgment they were not. In selling paint, these men worked for themselves. They were paid the difference between what the paint cost them and what they…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- The People v. ScottIllinois Supreme Court · 1927
- Board of Levee Commissioners v. JohnsonCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1917
- Western & Atlantic R. R. v. HendersonSupreme Court of the United States · 1929
3Cited by11 opinions
- Idaho Mutual Benefit Ass'n v. RobisonIdaho Supreme Court · 1944
- Cobb County School District v. BarkerSupreme Court of Georgia · 1999
- Hood v. CarstenSupreme Court of Georgia · 1997
- State v. FinchIdaho Supreme Court · 1957
- Sarah Coventry, Inc. v. CaldwellSupreme Court of Georgia · 1979
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.