SINGER MANUFACTURING COMPANY
v.
RAHN
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Singer Manufacturing Company was liable for injuries caused by the negligence of Corbett, a canvasser-driver, because Corbett was the company's servant despite being compensated by commission rather than salary. The Supreme Court held that the master-servant relationship existed because Singer retained the right to control not only what work Corbett performed but also how he performed it, including the manner and route of his driving, making Singer responsible for his negligent acts committed in the course of employment regardless of any contractual clause disclaiming responsibility to the public.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice Gray,
after stating the case as above reported, delivered the opinion of the court.
The general rules that must govern this case are undisputed; and the only controversy is as to their application to the contract between the defendant company and Corbett, the driver, by whose negligence the plaintiff was injured;
A master is liable to third persons injured by negligent acts done by his servant in the course of-his employment, although the master did not authorize or know of the servant’s act or neglect, or even if he disapproved or forbade it. Philadelphia & Reading Railroad v. Derby, 14 How. 468, 486. And the relation of master and servant exists whenever the employer retains the right to direct the manner in which the business shall be done, as well as the result to be accomplished, or, in other words, “ not. only what shall be done, but how it shall be done.” Railroad Co. v. Hanning, 15 Wall. 649, 656.
The contract between the defendant and Corbett, upon the construction and effect of which this case turns, is entitled “Canvasser’s Salary and Commission Contract.” The compensation to be paid by the company to Corbett, for selling its machines, consisting of “ a selling commission ” on the price of machines sold by him, and “ a collecting commission ” on the sums collected of the purchasers, is uniformly and repeatedly spoken of as made for his “ services.” The company may discharge him by terminating the contract at any time, whereas he can terminate it only upon ten days’ notice. The company is to furnish him with a wagon; and the horse and harness to be furnished by him are “to be used exclusively in canvassing for the sale of said machines and the general prosecution of said business.”
But what is more significant, Corbett “ agrees to give his exclusive time and best energies to said business,” and is to forfeit all his commissions under the contract, if while it is in force he sells any machines other, than those furnished to him by the company; and he further “ agrees to employ himself undér the direction of the said Singer Manufacturing Company, and under such rules and instructions as it or its manager at Minneapolis shall, prescribe.”
In short, Corbett, for the commissions to be paid him, agrees to give his whole time and services to the business of the company ; and the company reserves to itself the right of prescribing hnd regulating not only what business he shall do, but the manner in which he shall do it; and might, if it saw fit, instruct him what route to take, or even at what speed to drive.
The provision of the contract, that Corbett shall not use the name of the company in any manner whereby the public or any individual may be led to believe that it is responsible for bis actions, does not and cannot affect its responsibility to third persons injured by his negligence in the course of his employment.
The Circuit Court therefore rightly held that Corbett was the defendant’s servant, for whose negligence in the course of his employment, the defendant was responsible to the plaintiff. Railroad Co. v. Hanning, above cited; Linnehan v. Rollins, 137 Mass. 123; Regina v. Turner, 11 Cox Crim. Cas. 551.
Judgment affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (45 total)
-
United States v. Silk, 331 U.S. 704 (U.S. 1947)…. W. 52; Warner v. Hardwood Lumber Co., 231 Mich. 328, 204 N. W. 107; Frost v. Blue Ridge Timber Corp., 158 Tenn. 18, 11 S. W. 2d 860; Lee v. Mark H. Brown Lumber Co., 15 La. App. 294, 131 So. 697. See particularly Singer Manufacturing Co. v. Rahn, 132 U. S. 518. Compare United States v. Mutual Trucking Co., 141 F. 2d 655; Glenn v. Standard Oil Co., 148 F. 2d 51. The opinion of the Circuit Court of Appeals in the Greyvan case stated, after referring to United States v. Mutual Trucking Co., 141 F. 2d 655:…
-
Metcalf & Eddy v. Mitchell, 269 U.S. 514 (U.S. 1926)…tiates the employee or servant from the independent contractor. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Ry. Co. v. Bond, 240 U. S. 449, 456; Standard Oil Co. v. Anderson, 212 U. S. 215, 227; and see Casement v. Brown, 148 U. S. 615; Singer Mfg. Co. v. Rahn., 132 U. S. 518, 523. We pass to the more difficult question whether Congress had the constitutional piower to impose the tax in question, and this must be answered by ascertaining whether its effect is such as to-bring it within the purview of those decisions hol…
-
Chicago v. Bond, 240 U.S. 449 (U.S. 1916)…not retain the right to direct the manner in which the business should be done, as well as the results to be accomplished, or, in other words did not retain control not only of what should be done but how it should be done. Singer Mfg. Co. v. Rahn, 132 U. S. 518; Railroad Co. v. Hanning, 15 Wall. 649, 656; Standard Oil Co. v. Anderson, 212 U. S. 215, 227. The case falls, therefore, Under the ruling in Casement v. Brown, 148 U. S. 615, 622. We do not think that the contract can be regarded as an evasion of…
Previewing 3 of 45 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- R.R. Co. v. Hanning, 15 Wall. 649 (U.S. 1872)
- The Philadelphia & Reading R.R. Co. v. Derby, 14 How. 468 (U.S. 1852)