{ "id": 1612104, "name": "Arkansas State Licensing Board for General Contractors v. Rosamond", "name_abbreviation": "Arkansas State Licensing Board for General Contractors v. Rosamond", "decision_date": "1951-03-12", "docket_number": "4-9418", "first_page": "529", "last_page": "531", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "218 Ark. 529" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "237 S.W.2d 22" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark.", "id": 8808, "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "214 Ark. 312", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 8720459 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/214/0312-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 293, "char_count": 4223, "ocr_confidence": 0.513, "pagerank": { "raw": 9.505882454708161e-08, "percentile": 0.5204235845410292 }, "sha256": "c6e29f9588806fe4735c00bdf27d2770dbface4a90872a0bb471a62de16a10dd", "simhash": "1:5a0c1e0fc82adfec", "word_count": 767 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:20:49.049805+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Arkansas State Licensing Board for General Contractors v. Rosamond." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Holt, J.\nThis cause comes here from a decree dismissing appellant\u2019s petition for injunctive relief against appellee, for the alleged violation by appellee of Act 124 of the Acts of 1939, enacted to \u2018 \u2018 regulate the practice of General Contracting in the State of Arkansas.\u201d (Now \u00a7 71-701, et seq., Ark. Stats. 1947.) This act was amended in a manner not material here by Acts 217 of 1945 and 149 of 1949.\nAppellant alleged and contended that \u201cappellee is engaging in the business of contracting as defined by the licensing law in that he is supervising the construction of a motor court and hotel in the City of Hot Springs, the cost of which will exceed $100,000, without a license to engage in the business of contracting in the State of Arkansas.\u201d\nAppellee defended on the ground that he was acting as an employee only, was not a general contractor' within the meaning of the above licensing law, and the trial court, as above indicated, upheld appellee\u2019s contention.\nThe material facts are not in dispute. The exact question presented here was decided by this court in the recent case of Arkansas State Licensing Board for General Contractors v. Lane, 214 Ark. 312, 215 S. W. 2d 707.\nThe facts in the Lane case were not materially different from those presented here, and we there held against appellant\u2019s contention that Lane was a general contractor within the meaning of Act 124, and the definition of that term as shown in \u00a7 1 of the Act, \u00a7 71-701, Ark. Stats. 1947.\nAppellee, Rosamond, here was employed by Mr. Anthony, the owner, as a foreman to supervise the workers in the construction of a building costing approximately $100,000. \u201cQ. Then your sole agreement with Mr. Anthony wa\u2019s merely to act as a, might say, a foreman, is that correct? A. Yes, sir, that\u2019s right. . . . Q. Who pays the laborers up there? A. Mr. Anthony. Q. Do you have any right to pay any worker if he happened to quit the job at any time? A. No, sir, I don\u2019t. Q. All checks are made payable by-Mr. Anthony? A. Yes, sir. Q. And he pays for all materials? A. He pays for everything, yes, sir. Q. If you did not perform your duties in conformity with Mr. Anthony\u2019s instructions, do you have any contract of employment which would secure your continued employment? A. No, sir, I have not. Q. Does he have the right to fire you at any time? A. He can fire me any time he gets ready. I am only working as an employee, same as the rest of them up there. . . . Q. In other words, you\u2019re working solely under the direction and under the orders of Mr. Anthony? A. Yes, sir, that\u2019s right.\u201d\nAppellee had never worked for Mr. Anthony (owner) before and had no contract with him to construct the building. He was working on a basis of $125 per week, but should he fail to work a full week, his pay was figured on an hourly basis. He testified: \u201cQ. \u2018I am working for $125 per week salary.\u2019 Q. Will you explain to the Court what you meant by that statement \u2014 the basis upon which you\u2019re paid in other words? A. If I don\u2019t get in a full week, it\u2019s figured out as hourly wages. Sometimes I just work when Mr. Anthony is on the job, he tells me what to do\u2014 Q. In other words, Mr. Rosamond, you. are working on an hourly basis? A. Yes, sir. Q. And $125 week salary which you stated you were receiving is based upon a 44-hour week? A. 44-hour week, yes, sir. Q. Now if you only work 20 hours during a week, you wouldn\u2019t receive $125, would you? A. No, sir.\u201d\nThere were no bids on the construction of the building, and no contract let for its construction. Appellee paid for none of the material used. All purchases that he made were under the direction of Mr. Anthony, the owner, and were paid for by Anthony. Appellee could hire or discharge certain employees or workers on the job, but his acts in this connection could be nullified by Anthony.\nIt is suggested by appellant that we should overrule the Lane case, but this we decline to do. That decision is the law of the present case.\nAccordingly, the decree is affirmed.", "type": "majority", "author": "Holt, J." } ], "attorneys": [ "Campbell & Campbell and William J. Smith, for appellant.", "Hebert $ Dobbs and Richard W. Hobbs, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Arkansas State Licensing Board for General Contractors v. Rosamond.\n4-9418\n237 S. W. 2d 22\nOpinion delivered March 12, 1951.\nCampbell & Campbell and William J. Smith, for appellant.\nHebert $ Dobbs and Richard W. Hobbs, for appellee." }, "file_name": "0529-01", "first_page_order": 553, "last_page_order": 555 }