Schomp v. Fuller Brush Co.

Brogan, Chief Justice.

The issue here is whether “employment” as defined by the Unemployment Compensation law (R. S. 43:21-19, sub. i-6) resulted or existed under the facts and circumstances hereinafter set out. Sehomp, the claimant, had been engaged in selling the merchandise of the Fuller Brush Company, prosecutor of this writ. The merchandise was supplied by the company to Sehomp for cash or on a guaranteed credit plan. The Unemployment Compensation Commission of this state concluded that the claimant, Sehomp, was an employe of the Fuller Brush Company and that as such he was entitled to…