Cited by

No. 102, 251 Minn. 297 , 87 N. W. (2d) 646 ; Tretter v. Dart Transit Co. 271 Minn. 131 , 135 N. W. *116 (2d) 484; Graf v. Montgomery Ward & Co. 234 Minn. 485 , 49 N. W. (2d) 797 ; Mount v. City of Redwood Falls, 260 Minn. 16 , 108 N. W. (2d) 443 ; Geerdes v. J. R. Watkins Co. 258 Minn. 254 , 103 N. W. (2d) 641 ; Bosel v. Henderson Holding Co. 167 Minn. 72 , ; Lindbery v. J. A. Danens & Son, Inc. 266 Minn. 420 , 123 N. W. (2d) 695 .

It may be said that the finding of the trial court is supported by Bosel v. Henderson Holding Co. 167 Minn. 72 , , and Norris v. Kaempfer, 274 App. Div. 857 , 81 N. Y. S. (2d) 808, cases dealing with similar fact situations where workmen employed under a loose arrangement subject to the employer’s right of control and right to discharge at any time were held not to be independent contractors.

Co. 186 Minn. 534 , ; Fuller v. Northern States Power Co. 189 Minn. 134 , ; Bosel v. Henderson Holding Co. 167 Minn. 72 , ; Rick v. Noble, 196 Minn. 185 , ; Larson v. Le Mere, 220 Minn. 25 , 18 N. W. (2d) 696 ; contra, Lemkuhl v. Clark, 209 Minn. 276 , .

6 Colosimo v. Giacomo, 199 Minn. 600 , ; Bosel v. Henderson Holding Co. 167 Minn. 72 , ; Workman v. Endriss, 164 Minn. 199 , .

Herron v. Coolsaet Bros. 158 Minn. 522 , ; Bosel v. Henderson Holding Co. 167 Minn. 72 , ; 12 Minn. L. Rev. 83 .” It is apparent from the record that Grassle had the unquestioned right to control the means and manner of wrecking the buildings.

Colosimo v. Giacomo, 199 Minn. 600 , ; Bosel v. Henderson Holding Co. 167 Minn. 72 , ; Workman v. Endriss, 164 Minn. 199 , .

Lemkuhl v. Clark, 209 Minn. 276 , ; Herron v. Coolsaet Bros. 158 Minn. 522 , ; Bosel v. Henderson Holding Co. 167 Minn. 72 , ; 12 Minn. L. Rev. 83 .

635 ; Bosel v. Henderson Holding Co. 167 Minn. 72 , 208 N.W.

Virginia & R. L. Co. v. District Court, 128 Minn. 43 , ; Herron v. Coolsaet Bros. 158 Minn. 522 , ; Ledoux v. Joncas, 163 Minn. 498 , ; Bosel v. Henderson Holding Co. 167 Minn. 72 , ; Angell v. White Eagle O. & R. Co. 169 Minn. 183 , ; Moore v. Kileen & Gillis, 171 Minn. 15 , ; Krause v. Bodin, 172 Minn. 467 , ; Schonberg v. Zinsmaster Baking Co. 173 Minn. 414 , ; Nesseth v. Skelly Oil Co. 176 Minn. 373

See, also, Herron v. Coolsaet Bros. 158 Minn. 522 , ; Ledoux v. Joncas, 163 Minn. 498 , ; Bosel v. Henderson Holding Co. 167 Minn. 72 , ; Angell v. White Eagle O. & R. Co. 169 Minn. 183 , ; Lynch v. Hutchinson Produce Co. 169 Minn. 329 , ; Rouse v. Town of Bird Island, 169 Minn. 367 , ; Morss v. Murphy T. & S. Co. 170 Minn. 1 , ; Moore v. Kileen & Gillis, 171 Minn. 15

Bosel v. Henderson Holding Co. 167 Minn. 72 , ; 6 Dunnell, Dig.

Herron v. Coolsaet Bros. 158 Minn. 522 , ; Bosel v. Henderson Holding Co. 167 Minn. 72 , ; 12 Minn. L. Bev.

Herron v. Coolsaet Bros. 158 Minn. 522 , ; Bosel v. Henderson Holding Co. 167 Minn. 72 , ; 12 Minn. L. Rev. 83 .

Bosel v. Henderson Holding Co. 167 Minn. 72 , .

Herron v. Coolsaet Bros. 158 Minn. 522 , ; Bosel v. Henderson Holding Co. 167 Minn. 72 , ; 12 Minn. L. Rev. 83 .

And in Bosel v. Henderson Holding Co. 167 Minn. 72 , , we held that a corporation organized for the purpose of acquiring, holding, renting, and using certain buildings, and engaged in repairing a building to make it ready for a tenant, was acting in the usual course of its business, and that an employe injured while making such repairs was entitled to co

And see also in that connection Bosel v. Henderson Holding Co. 167 Minn. 72 , , and our previous decisions on that subject therein cited.

Bosel v. Henderson Holding Co. 167 Minn. 72 , ; Wass v. Bracker Constr.

In Bosel v. Henderson Holding Co. 167 Minn. 72 , , the workman who was injured in painting the roof of a factory building was doing all the work himself and using his own brushes.

Bosel v. Henderson Holding Co. 167 Minn. 72 , ; 6 Dunnell, Minn. Dig.

Bosel v. Henderson Holding Co. 167 Minn. 72 , .

Herron v. Coolsaet Bros. 158 Minn. 522 , ; Ledoux v. Joncas, 163 Minn. 498 , ; Bosel v. *375 Henderson Holding Co. 167 Minn. 72 , ; Angell v. White Eagle O. & R. Co. 169 Minn. 183 , ; Lynch v. Hutchinson Produce Co. 169 Minn. 329 , ; Rouse v. Town of Bird Island, 169 Minn. 367 , ; Morss v. Murphy T. & S. Co. 170 Minn. 1 , ; Moore v. Kileen & Gillis, 171 Minn. 15

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 , .

The case is ruled by Herron v. Coolsaet Bros. 158 Minn. 522 , ; Bosel v. Henderson Holding Co. 167 Minn. 72 , ; Lynch v. Hutchinson Produce Co. 169 Minn. 329 , , and the other cases involving the same issuei reviewed in Moore v. Kileen & Gillis, 171 Minn. 15 , , where-the decision against compensation was put upon the absence not only of actual supervision but also the right to c

In Bosel v. Henderson Holding Co. 167 Minn. 72 , , the right of control was emphasized as the thing which made for a contract of employment, while in Ledoux v. Joncas, 163 Minn. 498 , , its absence led to a decision of independent contract.