The judge did not err in reversing the award of the board of review.

Elijah P. Blackstock filed a claim for unemployment compensation benefits with the Employment Security Agency. This claim was rejected by the agency with the statement that there were "insufficient insured wages." The claimant filed an appeal to the appeals referee. Upon the hearing of the appeal, the claimant testified in part that: He was a newspaper vendor for Atlanta Newspapers, Inc.; on November 14, 1955, he went to get his papers and found out they had been given to another man; the person who got his papers had also been sent to the courthouse where he sold his papers; that he was not paid any money except what he made selling papers; he would pick up the papers in the morning and sell all he could; in the evening he would check in and pay for the papers he had sold and return the ones he was unable to sell; he paid three cents each for the papers, and resold them for five cents; he paid the defendant 3% sales tax on his gross sales for the day; the defendant's employees told him when to come in and pick up his papers; he was also told where he was to sell the papers and what time to check up in the evening; employees of the defendant would come by where he was selling papers and show him how to sell papers and tell him to stay on the corner until eight o'clock; that he had several arguments with the man who gave out the papers; the defendant had stopped selling him papers for short lengths of time before; that the defendant had not sold him any papers since November 14, 1955. Mr. Fisher, a witness for the defendant, testified in part that: He was street sales manager for the Atlanta Journal; the papers were sold to the claimant for three cents per copy plus 3% sales tax on the total sales for the day; they suggested to the news vendors on which corners they were to sell the papers; the papers were given to the claimant in the morning and he paid for the papers he sold, plus the sales tax; the claimant was given credit for the papers he did not sell; he did not control the vendors, but only suggested where they would sell papers.

Several other witnesses testified for the defendant substantially the same as Mr. Fisher and it would serve no good purpose to state their testimony in this opinion.

Upon the conclusion of the evidence the appeals referee decided that the claimant was a former employee of Atlanta Newspapers, Inc., and was entitled to unemployment compensation benefits. The defendant appealed to the board of review, which affirmed the finding of the appeals referee. From this ruling the defendant appealed to the superior court. The judge of the superior court reversed the decision of the board of review, and the claimant excepts to that ruling.

To entitle the claimant to unemployment compensation the evidence must disclose that he was an employee of the defendant receiving wages for his services. Code (Ann. Supp.) 54-657 (h) defines employment subject to the act as meaning any service performed for wages or under any contract of hire, written or oral, express or implied. Code (Ann. Supp.) 54-657 (n) defines "wages" as meaning "all remunerations for personal services, including commissions and bonuses and the cash value of all remuneration paid in any medium other than cash." "It makes no difference whether the relationship between the parties was one of employer-employee or the 'dealers' were independent contractors. The test, and the question here for decision, is whether the status between the parties falls within the meaning of employment as defined by the act. Young v. Bureau of Unemployment Comp., 63 Ga. App. 130, 137 (10 S. E. 2d 412)." McNeel, Inc. v. Redwine, 90 Ga. App. 345, 347 (83 S. E. 2d 33).

In the present case the evidence disclosed that the claimant was not on the payroll of the defendant nor did he receive any salary or compensation from it. The claimant's daily profits consisted of the difference between the price he paid for the papers and the price at which he resold them to the public. While it is true the defendant would give the claimant a refund or credit for the papers that he failed to sell, this would not destroy the relationship as vendor and vendee between the parties. The termination of their relationship would be brought about not by discharge in its ordinary sense, but by the claimant's failure to purchase papers from the defendant, or by the defendant's refusal to sell further papers to the claimant. This status is supported further by the fact that the defendant charged the claimant sales tax on each purchase of papers made by the claimant. The evidence demanded a finding that the claimant was not an employee of the defendant receiving wages for his services. The judge did not err in reversing the decision of the board of review.

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