Cited by

Another point stressed by the employer and insurer is that, since Corcoran was the president and the sole owner of the corporate stock, he was not an employee in fact and that the relationship of employer and employee did not exist, and cannot exist, citing Donaldson v. William H. B. Donaldson Co. 176 Minn. 422 , , and Erickson v. Erickson Furniture Co. 179 Minn. 304 , .

8(3), the workmen’s compensation act had not covered executive officers while performing their duties as such (Bendix v. The Bendix Co. 217 Minn. 439 , 14 N. W. [2d] 464; Benson v. Hygienic Artificial Ice Co. 198 Minn. 250 , ; Erickson v. Erickson Furniture Co. 179 Minn. 304 , ; Donaldson v. William H. B. Donaldson Co. 176 Minn. 422 , ), although this court repeatedly had held that a corporate officer was entitled to the benefits of the act if injured while performing services for the corporatio

1004 ; Donaldson v. William H. B. Donaldson Co. 176 Minn. 422 , 223 N.W.

Angell v. White Eagle O. & R. Co. 169 Minn. 183 , ; Donaldson v. William H. B. Donaldson Co. 176 Minn. 422 , ; Jackson v. Cathcart & Maxfield, Inc. 201 Minn. 526 , ; Arterburn v. County of Redwood, 154 Minn. 338 , ; McGough v. McCarthy Imp.

Donaldson v. William H. B. Donaldson Co. 176 Minn. 422 , ; Erickson v. Erickson Furniture Co. 179 Minn. 304 , ; Bendix v. The Bendix Co. 217 Minn. 439 , 14 N. W. (2d) 464 ; March v. March Gardens, Inc. 203 Minn. 195 , .

1927, § 4326[g][2]); but, as we stated in Donaldson v. William H. B. Donaldson Co. 176 Minn. 422, 423 , , “throughout the act the purpose to include only workers as distinguished from executive officers is apparent.

Relators cite and rely on Donaldson v. William H. B. Donaldson Co. 176 Minn. 422 , ; Erickson v. Erickson Furniture Co. 179 Minn. 304 , ; Benson v. Hygienic Artificial Ice Co. 198 Minn. 250 , .

It is conceded that under our decisions in the cases of Donaldson v. William H. B. Donaldson Co. 176 Minn. 422 , ; Erick-son v. Erickson Furniture Co. 179 Minn. 304 , ; and Benson v. Hygienic Artificial Ice Co. 198 Minn. 250 , ; and Walsh v. Mankato Oil Co. 201 Minn. 58 , , the relationship did not exist as between the relator and the manufacturing company and that no rec

onclusion is that when the father in this case permitted his minor daughter to work for defendant, without electing not to be bound by the compensation act as he might have done, he accepted the provisions of the statute, and thereby surrendered his right to any other method or form of compensation.” More to the point as sustaining plaintiff’s position are Donaldson v. William H. B. Donaldson Co. 176 Minn. 422 , ; Erickson v. Erickson Furniture Co. 179 Minn. 304 , ; and Benson v. Hygienic Artifi

There are two cases in this court which have a bearing on this question — Donaldson v. William H. B. Donaldson Co. 176 Minn. 422 , , *254 and Erickson v. Erickson Furniture Co. 179 Minn. 304 , .

Putting aside the *330 question whether the employment of Mr. Quast was exclusively executive in character (Donaldson v. William H. B. Donaldson Co. 176 Minn. 422 , ; Erickson v. Erickson Furniture Co. 179 Minn. 304 , ) we find the record open to the conclusion that his participation in the good will tour was not referable to his connection with the bank, but only the voluntary act of a public-spirited citizen desiring to further community enterprise

We recently had occasion to consider a similar question in Donaldson v. William H. B. Donaldson Co. 176 Minn. 422 , .