Associated Indemnity Corp. v. Industrial Accident Commission

BARNARD, P. J. The petitioner, who was the insurance carrier for Assets Corporation, seeks to annul an award of the respondent commission in favor of the respondent Cagle.

The respondent Briscoe was the owner of two ranches in Fresno County situated about one-eighth of a mile apart, [477]one consisting of 120 acres, which will be hereinafter referred to as parcel 1, and the other of 20 acres which will hereinafter be referred to as parcel 2. The Security-First National Bank of Los Angeles held a trust deed covering parcel 1 but was not interested in parcel 2. Some two or three years before the time here in question Briscoe, being in default on this trust deed, made an arrangement with the bank whereby the management and control of parcel 1 was turned over to the Assets Corporation, a company with which the bank had a working agreement for the purpose of handling and operating a large number of farms which had been taken over by it. Under this arrangement the Assets Corporation paid all the expenses of farming parcel 1 with the understanding that the proceeds therefrom should be applied first to the repayment of the sums thus advanced and then to reduce the amount of Briscoe’s other indebtedness to the bank.

Briscoe was employed by the Assets Corporation as foreman on parcel 1 at a salary of $100 per month, and was under the direct supervision of a “field man” employed by that corporation and under the indirect supervision of its higher officials. Briscoe owned a team of mules which was kept on parcel 1 and mainly used thereon although occasionally used by him on parcel 2. On a few occasions when they were not otherwise needed these mules were loaned by Briscoe to neighbors for use on their ranches. The cost of feeding these mules was charged as one of the expenses of farming parcel 1 and later, during some two years, Briscoe took hay which he had raised on parcel 2' and hauled the same to parcel 1 where it was used in feeding the mules. During these two years, with the knowledge and consent of the officers and agents of the Assets Corporation, he took its employees from parcel 1 and used them to cut the hay on parcel 2 and later to haul the same to parcel 1. At such times the wages of these men were paid by the Assets Corporation and no charge was made for the hay by Briscoe as any saving thus effected inured to his benefit in reducing his indebtedness.

In April, 1934, Briscoe used certain of these employees of the Assets Corporation in hauling some material from parcel 2 to parcel 1 which was used in erecting a tool shed thereon. About the same time he took certain of the employees of the Assets Corporation, including the respondent