Clendening v. London Assurance Co.

On Petition to Rehear

Pelts, Justice.

Defendant has filed a petition to rehear complaining of our holding, and asserting that our opinion is based upon misinterpretations of the proof in a number of particulars:

[1] Petitioner complains that we stated (supra, op. 336 S.W.2d at page 537) that Jones, Cantrell & Jones employed plaintiff to help lay the brick “at so much per thousand,” while the proof showed it was “at $2.25 an hour.” This was an inadvertence on our part, but it was not material; for in either case, under the proof, plaintiff was their “employee” (D. M. Rose & Co. v. Snyder, supra,…