Lutz v. Long-Bell Lumber Sales Corp.

I differ with the majority of the court as to the conclusion of fact which should be drawn from the testimony of E. R. Powell, C. A. Lutz, and W. E. Cline, and also as to the understanding of Act No. 20 of 1914, § 6 (amended by Act No. 85 of 1926). My conclusion of fact is that W. E. Cline was not a subcontractor under Long-Bell Sales Corporation, nor did he work under this company in any subservient capacity, in resawing the timber sent to his mill by the defendant company. He simply resawed certain pieces of timber for the defendant company, reducing the pieces to certain sizes, lengths,…