Cited by

As stated in Stevens v. Fritzen, supra ( 139 Minn. 492 , ): “Plaintiff’s attorneys claim that because defendant failed to ask leave to serve a proposed case before he attempted to make the service, *445 the court had no power to make the order of August 15th, extending the time and settling the case theretofore proposed.

Lennon v. District Court, 138 Minn. 103 , ; State ex rel.

Lennon v. District Court, 138 Minn. 103, 106 , , as referring “to the employer’s ordinary vocation and not to every occasional, incidental, or insignificant work he may have to do.” See Billmayer v. Sanford, 177 Minn. 465 , ; Sink v. Pharaoh, 170 Minn. 137 , , 50 A. L. R. 1173.

Lennon v. District Court, 138 Minn. 103 , ; State ex rel.

Lennon v. District Court, 138 Minn. 103 , , as applicable there, should hold substantially applicable here.

Lennon v. District Court of Douglas County, 138 Minn. 103 , ; Klein v. McCleary, 154 Minn. 498 , .

Lennon v. District Court, 138 Minn. 103 , 164 N.W.

Lennon v. District Court, 138 Minn. 103 , .

Lennon v. District Court, 138 Minn. 103 , ; Klein v. McCleary, 154 Minn. 498 , ; Durrin v. Meehl, 163 Minn. 325 , ; Workman v. Endriss, 164 Minn. 199 , .

v. District Court, 138 Minn. 103 , ; State ex rel.

Lennon v. District Court, 138 Minn. 103 , .

Lennon v. District Court of Douglas County, 138 Minn. 103 , .

In State v. District Court of Douglas County, 138 Minn. 103 , , one who owned but did not operate a farm was building a shed on his farm to substitute for a barn that had burned..

Even though relator had been employed by Wilcox, it is not made certain by the record before us that such employment would have been in the usual course of the latter’s trade, business, profession or occupation, so that the case would fall within the provisions of the compensation act as construed in State v. District Court of Douglas County, 138 Minn. 103 , , and in State v. Nelson, supra, page 123.

The case of State v. District Court of Douglas County, 138 Minn. 103 , , is not in point.