Creswell v. Charlotte News Publishing Co.
Supreme Court of North Carolina
1Opinion of the CourtBrogden, J.
Was the plaintiff an employee of the defendant within the purview of the Workmen’s Compensation Act ?
The act defines employee to mean “every person engaged in the employment under any appointment or contract of hire or apprenticeship, express or implied, oral or written,” etc. The plaintiff was not on the payroll of the defendant and although he was assigned a specific territory and required to remain therein and actively engaged in an effort to sell newspapers, notwithstanding he conducted the sales according to bis own methods. Thus, be solicited sales from such persons as he desired.…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- State Compensation Insurance Fund v. Industrial Accident CommissionCalifornia Supreme Court · 1932
- Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Industrial Accident CommissionCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1932
- Associated Indemnity Corp. v. Industrial Accident CommissionCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1931
- Port Huron Engine & Thresher Co. v. Township of Port HuronMichigan Supreme Court · 1916
3Cited by17 opinions
- Skidmore Ex Rel. Skidmore v. HaggardSupreme Court of Missouri · 1937
- Hollowell v. North Carolina Department of Conservation & DevelopmentSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1934
- Hann v. Times-Dispatch Publishing Co.Supreme Court of Virginia · 1936
- Cooper v. Asheville Citizen-Times Publishing Co., Inc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1963
- Balinski Et Ux. v. Press Pub. Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1935
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.