Texas Employers' Ins. Ass'n v. Bowen (227 S.W.2d 846, 1950)

GRISSOM, Chief Justice. -

This is a workmen’s compensation case. W. L. Bowen obtained a judgment for total, permanent incapacity resulting from an injury received while, he alleged, he was an employee 'of Texas Hide & Metal Company. The insurance carrier of said company has appealed. ' ' ' • ■

Whether Bowen was an employee of Texas Hide & Metal Company or of Jim Wilson was a hotly contested issue in the case. Bowen had testified by deposition, in substance, that he was an employee of Wilson. This judgment depends upon a finding that he was an employee of Texas Hide &- Metal Company. Appellee, Bowen, introduced hearsay evidence to the effect that he was an employee of and insured by said Hide & Metal Company.

Wilson, who was alleged by appellant to be the employer of Bowen, did not testify. No representative of Texas Hide & Metal Company testified. Only the appellee, Bowen, testified on the question of who was his employer. He testified that after Wilson came for him and while he and Wilson were on the road to the gyp mill, “I asked him (Wilson) who we were working for, and he said ‘The Hide and Metal Company at Abilene.’ ” There was no testimony tending to show that Wilson was an agent of said Hide & Metal Company with authority to employ Bowen to work for said company. Bowen also testified that he heard Wilson tell Dr. Callan to take good care of him; that Bowen was insured by the Hide & Metal Company at Abilene. Such testimony was objected to, among other things, because it was hearsay. We think it is plainly so. It cannot be considered.as any evidence .tending to establish that Bowen was, in fact, an employee of Texas Hide & Metal Company at the time he was injured, whether •objected to or not. Texas Co. v. Lee et al., 138 Tex. 167, 157 S.W.2d 628, 631.

Bowen introduced an envelope addressed to him with the return address of Texas Hide & Metal Company on it and a .statement on a printed form o