Cited by

at 894-95 (quoting Rasmussen v. George Benz & Sons, 168 Minn. 319, 325 , 210 N.W.

* * * In short, the community of interest gives the third party, who is subject to the compensation act, under this statute the status of an employer toward the [employee], O’-95 (Minn.1996) (quoting Rasmussen v. George Benz & Sons, 168 Minn. 319, 325 , 210 N.W.

Rasmussen v. George Benz & Sons, 168 Minn. 319, 325 , 210 N.W.

In Rasmussen v. George Benz & Sons, 168 Minn. 319, 321, 324-25 , 210 N.W.

Rasmussen v. George Benz & Sons, 168 Minn. 319 , , , and McGrath v. Northwestern Trust Co. 178 Minn. 47 , , two early decisions under this subdivision, held that an owner of a building who maintained an elevator or stairway for the convenience of his tenants and those with whom they did business was engaged in the due course

Iverson v. Quam, 226 Minn. 290 , 32 N. W. (2d) 596 ; Rasmussen v. George Benz & Sons, 168 Minn. 819 , , ; Rose v. Mooers Brothers Inc. 161 Minn. 149 , ; Barrett v. Lumber Exchange Co. 159 Minn. 326 , ; Williams v. Dickson, 122 Minn. 49 , ; Farley v. Byers, 106 Minn. 260 , .

As to subsequent cases, referring specifically to Rasmussen v. George Benz Sons, 168 Minn. 319 , 324 , 210 N.W.

Benz & Sons, 168 Minn. 319, 325 , , .

Rasmussen v. George Benz & Sons, 168 Minn. 819 , 325, , ; Erickson v. Kircher, 168 Minn. 67 , ; Yoyer v. Dispatch Printing Co. 62 Minn. 393 , .

It was there said: “Perhaps the case of Rasmussen v. George Benz & Sons, 168 Minn. 319, 325 , , , has gone furthest in eliminating an employe’s common-law right of action.

Perhaps the case of Rasmussen v. George Benz Sons, 168 Minn. 319 , 325 , 210 N.W.

There it was said: “No two cases are alike, and it would be futile to attempt to distinguish or liken the facts in this case to any we have heretofore decided.” However, this general principle stated in Rasmussen v. George Benz & Sons, 168 Minn. 319 , , , was repeated and is applicable to the instant case: “Business is related when the parties are mutually or reciprocally interested in a commercial way, or where the business of one has a necessary relation toward or in conjunction with the o

Co. 167 *358 Minn. 140, ; Rasmussen v. George Benz & Sons, 168 Minn. 319 , , ; Maher v. Duluth Yellow Cab Co. 172 Minn. 439 , ; Nealis v. C. R. I. & P. Ry.

Defendant in support of its contention urges strongly the case of Rasmussen v. George Benz & Sons, 168 Minn. 319 , , .

Among our own cases, only Rasmussen v. George Benz & Sons, 168 Minn. 319 , , , and McGrath v. N. W. Trust Co. 178 Minn. 47 , , upon which both parties rely, are .close enough on their facts to warrant detailed consideration.

Co. 165 Minn. 475 , ; Rasmussen v. George Benz & Sons, 168 Minn. 319 , , ; Behr v. Soth, 170 Minn. 278 , ; Olson v. Thiede, 177 Minn. 410 , ; McGrath v. N. W. Trust Co. 178 Minn. 47 , ; Ott v. St.

Rasmussen v. George Benz & Sons, 168 Minn. 319 , , .

Co. 157 Minn. 171 , ; Rasmussen v. George Benz & Sons, 168 Minn. 319 , , .

the injury was received at the time thereof, and not otherwise.” Were the proprietor of the meat market and Fox, Finch and Bierhaalder engaged “in the due course of business * * * in the accomplishment of the same or related purposes in operation on the premises where the injury was received at the time thereof ?” The appellant's claim that they were and cite Rasmussen v. George Benz & Sons, 168 Minn. 319 , , ; McGrath v. N. W. Trust Co. 178 Minn. 47 , ; and Ott v. St.

Defendant cites Rasmussen v. George Benz & Sons, 168 Minn. 319 , , ; Ott v. St.

Co. 165 Minn. 475 , ; Rasmussen v. George Benz & Sons, 168 Minn. 319 , , ; Behr v. Soth, 170 Minn. 278 , .

The reply being stricken, the facts to be gathered from the complaint and answer, which are hereinbefore stated, are very similar to the facts in Rasmussen v. George Benz & Sons, 168 Minn. 319 , , , wherein it is held that the parties Avere engaged in the due course of business in the accomplishment of related purposes on the premises within the purview of G. S. 1923 ( 1 Mason, 1927 ) § 4291(1) (b).

Rasmussen v. George Benz & Sons, 168 Minn. 319 , , ; Uotila v. Oliver I. Min.

Co. 165 Minn. 475 , ; Rasmussen v. George Benz & Sons, 168 Minn. 319 , , .