Cited by

Relator relies on a number of cases, all of which are distinguishable: Stahl v. Patrick, 206 Minn. 413 , (employee injured while cutting wood — employed by retired farmers who had embarked on a distinct business of dealing in wood); Klein v. McCleary, 154 Minn. 498 , (employee injured while clearing land on summer resort tract — land owned by farmer employer); Austin v. Leonard, Crossett & Riley, Inc. 177 Minn. 503 , (employee injured while en route between potato field and warehouse — hired

Lading v. City of Duluth, 153 Minn. 464 , ; Klein v. McCleary, 154 Minn. 498 , ; State ex rel.

The principles announced in our decision in Klein v. McCleary, 154 Minn. 498 , , that the farm labor must be done on a farm to come within the exclusion, has been generally followed in construing the terms “agricultural” and “farm labor,” as used in workmen’s compensation and social security acts.

Peterson v. Farmers State Bank, 180 Minn. 40 , ; Klein v. McCleary, 154 Minn. 498 , ; Nygaard v. Throndson Bros. 173 Minn. 441 , .

True, a farmer can embark in some other business or vocation as in Klein v. McCleary, 154 Minn. 498 , 192 N.W.

In Klein v. McCleary, 154 Minn. 498 , , a case particularly relied on by relator, the employer operated a summer resort, and the injured employe was found to have been hired as a servant in running the summer resort; and hence the work in clearing the ground of stumps, in which he was engaged when fatally injured, was not farm labor, but b

Co. v. District Court, 132 Minn. 249 , ; Lading v. City of Duluth, 153 Minn. 464 , ; Klein v. McCleary, 154 Minn. 498 , ; Maher v. Duluth Yellow Cab Co. 172 Minn. 439 , ; Reardon v. City of Austin, 174 Minn. 359 , ; Austin v. Leonard, Crossett & Riley, Inc. 177 Minn. 503 , ; Tschida v. Bratt, 179 Minn. 277 , 228 N W. 935.

Foss v. Nelson, 145 Minn. 123 , ; Klein v. McCleary, 154 Minn. 498 , ; Shafer v. Parke, Davis & Co. 192 Mich.

Foss v. Nelson, 145 Minn. 123 , ; Klein v. McCleary, 154 Minn. 498 , ; Benoy v. Torkelson, 161 Minn. 223 , ; Durrin v. Meehl, 163 Minn. 325 , ; Workman v. Endriss, 164 Minn. 199 , ; Reed v. Township of Monticello, 164 Minn. 358 , ; Holmen Creamery Assn. v. Industrial Comm.

Lading v. City of Duluth, 153 Minn. 464 , ; Klein v. McCleary, 154 Minn. 498 , ; Maher v. Duluth Yellow Cab Co. 172 Minn. 439 , ; Reardon v. City of Austin, 174 Minn. 359 , .

In Klein v. McCleary, 154 Minn. 498, 501 , , it was said: “Generally speaking, a man hired to work on a farm is a farm laborer and is not within the compensation act, but if his employer should take a contract to clear the right of Avay for a railroad or public highway and should set his hired man at work on the job, would any one suppose

1917D, 866; Klein v. McCleary, 154 Minn. 498 , ; Benoy v. Torkelson, 161 Minn. 223 , ; Workman v. Endriss, 164 Minn. 199 , ; O’Rourke v. Percy Vittum Co. 166 Minn. 251 , ; Bosel v. Henderson Holding Co. 167 Minn. 72 , .

Benoy v. Torkelson, 161 Minn. 223 , ; Klein v. McCleary, 154 Minn. 498 , .

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

Nor does the instant case come within that of Klein v. McCleary, 154 Minn. 498 , 192 N.W.

Nor does the instant case come within that of Klein v. McCleary, 154 Minn. 498 , , where the injured employe recovered because the employer was held to be engaged in operating a summer resort for profit, even though a part of the employe’s work was farm labor upon the premises connected with the resort.

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 , .

Nienaber v. District Court, 138 Minn. 416 , , L. R. A. 1918F, 200; Klein v. McCleary, 154 Minn. 498 , .

155 Minn. 150 , ; Schoewe v. Winona P. & G. Co. 155 Minn. 4 , , and cases cited; Klein v. McCleary, 154 Minn. 498 , ; State ex rel.

1917D, 866; Klein v. McCleary, 154 Minn. 498 , .