Master and Servant. Workmen's Compensation Act. Who Is an Employee

1917 Virginia law review  
Known as the Early Journal Content, this set of works include research articles, news, letters, and other writings published in more than 200 of the oldest leading academic journals. The works date from the mid--seventeenth to the early twentieth centuries. We encourage people to read and share the Early Journal Content openly and to tell others that this resource exists. People may post this content online or redistribute in any way for non--commercial purposes. Read more about Early Journal
more » ... out Early Journal Content at JSTOR is a digital library of academic journals, books, and primary source objects. JSTOR helps people discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content through a powerful research and teaching platform, and preserves this content for future generations. JSTOR is part of ITHAKA, a not--for--profit organization that also includes Ithaka S+R and Portico. For more information about JSTOR, please contact RECENT DECISIONS 413 tween a mere warning and the duty to instruct the plaintiff how to avoid the danger. It would seem also that due weight was not given to the fact that the case was on a demurrer to the evidence, where every presumption is against the demurrant. MASTER AND SERVANT-WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT-WHO IS AN EM-PLOYEE.-The plaintiff was president of a small corporation from which he received a salary, and owned a great majority of its stock. He was accustomed to assist in the manual labor of the establishment, and while so engaged he was injured. He sued the corporation for damages, under the Workmen's Compensation Act, claiming to be an employee. Held, the plaintiff can recover. Browne v. S. W. Browne Co., et al., 162 N. Y. Supp. 244. The Workmen's Compensation Acts which have, in recent years, been enacted in the majority of the states of the Union are remedial in their nature, and should be given a liberal construction so as to effectuate the purpose for which they were adopted. Appeal of Hotel Bond Co., 89 Conn. 143, 93 Atl. 245. See Coakley v. Coakley, 216 Mass. 71, 102 N. E. 930. It is essentially necessary under these acts, before any person can be considered an employee, that he be engaged under a contract of employment expressed or implied-in short, the relation of master and servant must exist. Hillestad v.
doi:10.2307/1063750 fatcat:fwwwuqjwendrjjpdsfo4zuul7i