Stansbury

The respondent Industrial Accident Commission allowed compensation to W. J. Husong for an injury received while he was in the employ of petitioner and petitioner now asks that the award be annulled. It is conceded that the employment was casual. It is also contended by petitioner that the injury did not occur in the usual course of his business. The commission found that petitioner “was in the business of leasing certain road-making machinery and outfit, and that it was necessary and in the usual course of said business to keep the said machinery and outfit in repair; that the work and employment of the applicant at the time of his injury was the repairing of such ma- ■ chinery, and was therefore in the usual course of the business of the employer. ’ ’

The finding that the petitioner was engaged in the business of leasing road-making machinery and outfit is amply supported by the evidence, but the finding that the applicant was injured while making repairs on machinery used in that business finds no support whatever in it. In addition to the machinery used in the business, the petitioner had in his possession a certain clam-shell dredge, which he had acquired from a contractor…