Fidelity Union Casualty Co. v. Arnold

(after stating the case as above).

Appellee, of-course, was not entitled to recover anything of appellant without proof that he was an employee of Leath and Maddox at the time he was injured. That ap-pellee was such an employee was, appellant insists, disputed in the evidence adduced at the trial. The court was not requested to submit and did not submit to the jury an issue as to whether appellee was such an employee or not. To render judgment for ap-pellee in that state of the case, appellant asserts, was error entitling it to a reversal of the judgment.

The contention is on the theory that…