Cited by

See, also, Barg v. Bousfield, 65 Minn. 355 , ; Rait v. New England F. & C. Co. 66 Minn. 76 , ; Brown v. Douglas Lbr.

It was said in Rait v. New England F. & C. Co. 66 Minn. 76 , , that the question whether the doctrine of respondeat superior applies to any particular case depends upon the question whether the original contractor had control of and the right to direct the subcontractor as to time, place, and manner of performing the work; and this question must be determined fro

In Rait v. New England F. & C. Co. 66 Minn. 76 , , this court came near to holding that a carpenter removing ice from a roof preparatory to repairing it was performing a service so menial that as matter of law he could not be considered an independent contractor.

F. & C. Co. 66 Minn. 76 , ; Vosbeck v. Kellogg, 78 Minn. 176 , ; Aldritt v. Gillette-Herzog Mnfg.

In Rait v. New England F. & C. Co. 66 Minn. 76 , , Mr. Justice Mitchell said: “In every case the decisive question in determining whether the doctrine of respondeat superior applies is, had the defendant the right to control in the given particular the conduct of the person doing the wrong.

In Rait v. New England F. & C. Co. 66 Minn. 76 , , it is said: “In every ease the decisive question in determining whether the doctrine of respondeat superior applies is, had the defendant the right to control in the given particular the conduct of the person doing the wrong?

564; Barg v. Bousfield, 65 Minn. 355 , ; Rait v. New England Furniture Co. 66 Minn. 76 , ; Gahagan v. Aermotor Co. 67 Minn. 252 , ; Johnson v. Crookston Lumber Co. 95 Minn. 142 , ; Corrigan v. Elsinger, 81 Minn. 42 , ; Ray v. Jones & Adams Co. 92 Minn. 101 , ; Anderson v. Foley Bros. 110 Minn. 151 , ; Aarnes v. Great Nor

564; Barg v. Bousfield, 65 Minn. 355 , 68 N W. 45 ; Rait v. New England Furniture & Carpet Co. 66 Minn. 76 , ; Gahagan v. Aermotor Co. 67 Minn. 252 , ; Johnson v. Crookston Lumber Co. 95 Minn. 142 , ; Corrigan v. Elsinger, 81 Minn. 42 , ; Bay v. Jones & Adams Co. 92 Minn. 101 , ; Anderson v. Foley Bros. 110 Minn. 151 , .

England Furniture & Carpet Co. 66 Minn. 76 , , it is stated that: “In every case the decisive question in determining whether the doctrine of respondeat superior applies is, had the defendant the right to control in the given particular the conduct of the person doing the work.

564; Barg v. Bousfield, 65 Minn. 355 , ; Rait v. New England F. & C. Co. 66 Minn. 76 , ; Klages v. Gillette Herzog Mnfg.

Barg v. Bousfield, 65 Minn. 355 , ; Rait v. New England F. & C. Co., 66 Minn. 76 , .

Rait v. New England F. & C. Co., 66 Minn. 76 , ; Roe v. Winston, 86 Minn. 77 , ; Klages v. Gillette-Herzog Mnfg.

Co., 85 Minn. 206 , ; Rait v. New England Furniture & Carpet Co., 66 Minn. 76 , ; Klages v. Gillette-Herzog Mnfg.

In Rait v. New England F. & C. Co., 66 Minn. 76 , 68 N. *241 W. 729 , it was held that the question depended upon whether one party had the right to control, in the given particular, the conduct of the person doing the wrong.

In the case of Rait v. New England F. & C. Co., 66 Minn. 76 , , the following language was used: “In every case the decisive question in determining whether the doctrine of respondeat, superior applies is, had the defendant the right to control in the given particular the conduct of the person *463 doing the wrong?

Rait v. New England F. & C. Co., 66 Minn. 76 , ; Gahagan v. Aernotor Co., 67 Minn. 252 , ; Vosbeck v. Kellogg, 78.

It was *208 said in Rait v. New England F. & C. Co., 66 Minn. 76 , , that the question whether the doctrine of respondeat superior applies to any particular case depends upon the question whether the original contractor had control of and the right to direct the subcontractor as to time, place, and manner of performing the work; and this question must be determined fro

Rait v. New England F. & C. Co., 66 Minn. 76 , .

Gahagan v. Aermotor Co., 67 Minn. 252 , ; Rait v. New England F. & C. Co., 66 Minn. 76 , .

The decisive test “in determining whether the doctrine of respondeat superior applies is whether the defendant had, under the contract of employment, the right to control in the given particular the conduct of the person doing the wrong.” Eait v. New England, 66 Minn. 76 ; ; Gahagan v. Aermotor, 67 Minn. 252 , .

In the recent case of Rait v. New England F. & C. Co., 66 Minn. 76 , , we stated the law thus: “The word ‘servant,’ as used in this connection, is applicable to any relation in which, with reference to the matter out of which the alleged wrong has spi-ung, the person sought to be charged had the right under the contract of employment to control, in the given particular c