
    DONITHAN v. MICHIGAN IRON & CHEMICAL CO.
    Master and Servant — Workmen’s Compensation Act — Independent Contractor.
    Where plaintiff and another contracted with defendant to cut to specified dimensions a certain strip of timber and receive pay by the cord, plaintifE furnishing his own tools, being master of his own time, and under no control by defendant as to the help he should hire, he was an independent contractor rather than an employee, and therefore not entitled to compensation under the workmen’s compensation act for an accidental injury to his leg received while engaged in said work.
    Certiorari to Department of Labor and Industry.
    Submitted June 3, 1924.
    (Docket No. 2.)
    Decided July 24, 1924.
    Mose Donithan presented his claim for compensation against the Michigan Iron & Chemical Company for an accidental injury in defendant’s employ. From an order awarding compensation, defendant and the Michigan Mutual Liability Company, insurer, bring certiorari.
    Reversed, and order vacated.
    
      Clinic & Williams, for appellants.
    On the question as to whether independent contractor is workman or employee within meaning of workmen’s compensation acts, see note in L. R. A. 1916A, 118, 247; L. R. A. 1917D, 148; L. R. A. 1918F, 206.
   Wiest, J.

This case is on all fours with Gross v. Michigan Iron & Chemical Co., 219 Mich. 200. Plaintiff and another took a contract to cut to specified dimensions a certain strip of timber and receive pay by the cord, upon measure made every two weeks. Plaintiff furnished his own tools, was master of his own time, under no control by the company, could quit when he wanted to, hire others to help him, had the help of his boy, and the other man had the help of his boy. While working a sliver flew from an iron wedge and injured his leg. The commission allowed him compensation.

The Gross (Jose is controlling, and there we held that a similar contract, with the same company, and an accident to the eye caused by a sliver flying from a wedge, authorized no compensation because the party injured was an independent contractor. Either that case must be reversed or this award vacated.

We adhere to the holding made in the Gross Case and the award in this case is vacated, with costs to defendants.

Clark, C. J., and McDonald, Bird, Sharpe, Moore, Steere, and Fellows, JJ., concurred.  