Legal Opinion
Meadows v. Dixon
Court of Appeals of Georgia
Decided February 15, 1940No. 27986PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtFelton, J.
The only question for decision in this case is whether or not the employee was a farm laborer within the meaning of the workmen’s compensation act. The employer was engaged in producing turpentine and resin. In Pridgen v. Murphy, 44 Ga. App. 147 (160 S. E. 701), and in Moody v. Tillman, 45 Ga. App. 84 (163 S. E. 521), decided in October, 1931, and February, 1932, respectively, this court held that a turpentine operator was not a farmer within the meaning of the workmen’s compensation act. It had previously been held by the Federal courts that the turpentine business was not “agriculture.”…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Union Naval Stores Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1916
- Pridgen v. MurphyCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1931
- Moody v. TillmanCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1932
- United States v. Waters-Pierce Oil Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1912
3Cited by4 opinions
- Wilson v. Maryland Casualty Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1944
- Collins v. MillsSupreme Court of Georgia · 1944
- Georgia Power Company v. FletcherCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1966
- Hamilton Turpentine Co. v. JohnsonCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1956