Cited by

We early recognized that the tests for determining whether an injured person was an employee or an independent contractor were well understood, but as we said in Lynch v. Hutchinson Produce Co. 169 Minn. 329, 331 , : “* * * The difficulty comes in their application to the facts in a particular case.

of employee or independent contractor, the most important factor considered in light of the nature of the work involved is the right of the employer to control the means and manner of performance.” Under the decisions in this state, one who works on an hourly basis under an arrangement terminable at will may be an employee even though he works without supervision (Lynch v. Hutchinson Produce Co. 169 Minn. 329 , ), furnishes his own equipment (Bergstrom v. Brehmer, 214 Minn. 326 , 8 N. W. [2d] 32

1 Lindbery v. J. A. Danens & Son, Inc. 266 Minn. 420 , 123 N. W. (2d) 695 ; Bosel v. Henderson Holding Co. 167 Minn. 72 , ; Tretter v. Dart Transit Co. 271 Minn. 131 , 135 N. W. (2d) 484 ; Lynch v. Hutchinson Produce Co. 169 Minn. 329 , ; Rick v. Noble, 196 Minn. 185 , ; Geerdes v. J. R. Watkins Co. 258 Minn. 254 , 103 N. W. (2d) 641 ; Mount v. City of Redwood Falls, 260 Minn. 16 , 108 N. W. (2d) 443 .

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 , ; Krause v. Bodin, 172 Minn. 467 , ; Schonberg v. Zinsmaster Bak.

4 Ledoux v. Joncas, 163 Minn. 498 , ; Lynch v. Hutchinson Produce Co. 169 Minn. 329 , ; Nesseth v. Skelly Oil Co. 176 Minn. 373 , .

Virginia & R. L. Co. v. District Court, 128 Minn. 43 , ; Lynch v. Hutchinson Produce Co. 169 Minn. 329 , .

Lynch v. Hutchinson Produce Co. 169 Minn. 329, 331 , ; Rouse v. Town of Bird Island, 169 Minn. 367, 368 , .

Lynch v. Hutchinson Produce Co. 169 Minn. 329 , .

Lynch v. Hutchinson Produce Co. 169 Minn. 329 , .

Lynch v. Hutchinson Produce Co. 169 Minn. 329 , .

Lynch v. Hutchinson Produce Co. 169 Minn. 329 , .

r log at mill; provided own help; finding of court that plaintiff not an employe sustained) ; Angell v. White Eagle O. & R. Co. 169 Minn. 183 , (person killed was delivering oil for oil company; furnished the necessary teams, motive power, drivers, and extra labor; paid per gallon; held as a matter of law employe and not independent contractor) ; Lynch v. Hutchinson Produce Co. 169 Minn. 329 , (well digger employed to dig well; paid on day basis; owned the machine and handled it himself; hir

Gahr v. Strout, 179 Minn. 395 , ; Tschida v. Bratt, 179 Minn. 277 , ; Lampi v. Koponen, 178 Minn. 133 , ; Nesseth v. Skelly Oil Co. *291 176 Minn. 373 , ; Schonberg v. Zinsmaster Baking Co. 173 Minn. 414 , ; Rouse v. Town of Bird Island, 169 Minn. 367 , ; Lynch v. Hutchinson Produce Co. 169 Minn. 329 , ; Angeli v. White Eagle O. & R. Co. 169 Minn. 183 , ; Herron v. Coolsaet Bros. 158 Minn. 522 , .

Herron v. Coolsaet Bros. 158 Minn. 522 , ; Ledoux v. Joncas, 163 Minn. 498 , ; Angell v. White Eagle O. & R. Co. 169 Minn. 183 , 210 * Lynch v. Hutchinson Produce Co. 169 Minn. 329 , ; Rouse v. Town of Bird Island, 169 Minn. 367 , ; Moore v. Kileen & Gillis, 171 Minn. 15 , ; Krause v. Bodin, 172 Minn. 467 , ; Schonberg v. Zinsmaster B. Co. 173 Minn. 414 , ; Nesseth v. Skelly Oil Co. 176 Minn. 373 , ; Lampi v.

And Lynch v. Hutchinson Produce Co. 169 Minn. 329 , , which collects the cases, authorized compensation to one in the position of Stoll rather than of Zarns.

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 , ; Krause v. Bodin, 172 Minn. 467 , ; Schonberg v. Zinsmaster Bak.

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 control.

In Schullo v. Village of Nash-wauk, 166 Minn. 186 , , the work, garbage hauling, was “done under the immediate and actual supervision of the street commissioner.” In Lynch v. Hutchinson Produce Co. 169 Minn. 329 , , the employe was under no obligation to dig a well which would produce water.