It is not error for the trial court to direct a verdict where there is no conflict in the evidence, and that introduced, with all reasonable deductions or inferences there from, demands the verdict directed.

On April 9, 1958, Elish Asbury by next friend obtained a judgment against W. S. Hicks as administrator of the estate of Conyers Davis and thereafter the judgment of the trial court denying the defendant's motion for new trial was affirmed by this court. Hicks v. Asbury, 99 Ga. App. 8 (107 S. E. 2d 337). After the final judgment in that case the plaintiff sought to collect the judgment and, when the insurance company that wrote liability insurance for the owner of the truck refused to pay the judgment, the plaintiff filed the present garnishment proceedings. The insurer, in its answer, denied the indebtedness, and after the plaintiff traversed the answer the issue thus made came on for trial, and at the conclusion of all the evidence the motion of the insurance company for a directed verdict was granted. Thereafter the plaintiff's amended motion for new trial, which assigned error on the direction of the verdict, was denied, and the plaintiff now excepts to such judgment.

The policy of liability insurance covered as an "insured," in addition to the named insured Mrs. A. C. Gainer, Mr. Gainer and anyone driving the truck with the permission of either of them. It then excluded as an "insured" any employee with respect to any injury "of another employee of the same employer injured in the course of such employment in an accident arising out of the maintenance or use of the automobile in the business of such employer."

The plaintiff relies on the holding by this court in Weiss v. Kling, 96 Ga. App. 618 (101 S. E. 2d 178), and cases there cited to support his contention that he, and the driver of the truck in which he was riding, and the third person engaged in cutting pulpwood, were independent contractors and not employees of Mr. Gainer. In that case Southern Tree Service was engaged to do a specific job for a flat fee in a fixed period of time and Southern Tree Service was engaged in an independent employment. " 'When a person is employed to do specific work and is in the exercise of a distinct and independent employment, and in the execution of this specific work is not under the immediate supervision and control of his employer, and the manner of doing the work and the employment, payment, and control of the labor is left entirely to the employee, the relation of master and servant does not exist, the party employed being an independent contractor. Moll on Independent Contractors and Employers' Liability, 13, 14, 15, and 16.' Lamb v. Fulton Bag & Cotton Mills, 26 Ga. App. 572 (1) (106 S. E. 607)." Weiss v. Kling, 96 Ga. App. 618, 620, supra.

Here the persons engaged in the cutting, hauling and loading pulpwood were not engaged in any independent employment, for each was paid by Mr. Gainer on a "piece work" basis, and while Gainer testified that he did not control the "time, manner and method" of doing the work, this was not conclusive that he did not have the "right" to do so, and he did not so testify. " 'Where one is employed generally to perform certain services for another, and there is no specific contract to do a certain piece of work according to specifications for a stipulated sum, it is inferable that the employer has retained the right to control the manner, method, and means of the performance of the contract, and that the employee is not an independent contractor. [Mitchem v. Sheridan Concrete Pipe Co., 45 Ga. App. 809 (1) (165 S. E. 889)]." Malcom v. Sudderth, 98 Ga. App. 674, 687 (106 S. E. 2d 367).

Under the evidence, both the plaintiff and Davis were employees of Gainer working on a "piece work" basis and whether "income tax" or "social security" was withheld from their wages or not would not be conclusive of the relationship, especially, where as here the work performed by the employees had no definite beginning or ending but was a continuous contract of employment. " 'In determining the real character of a contract, courts will always look to its purpose, rather than to the name given it by the parties.' Hays v. Jordan, 85 Ga. 741, 748 (11 S. E. 833, 9 L. R. A. 373)." Malcom v. Sudderth, 98 Ga. App. 674, 685, supra.

The evidence showed without dispute that the contract of insurance did not cover Davis as an "insured" at the time the plaintiff was injured and the trial court did not err in directing the verdict in favor of tlie insurance company, or in thereafter denying the plaintiff's motion for new trial which assigned error on such judgment.

Judgment affirmed. Felton, C. J., and Bell, J., concur.