Cited by

Washel v. Tankar Gas, Inc. 211 Minn. 403 , 2 N. W. (2d) 43 ; Nesseth v. Skelly Oil Co. 176 Minn. 373 , ; Angell v. White Eagle Oil & Refining Co. 169 Minn. 183 , .

1 Nesseth v. Skelly Oil Co. 176 Minn. 373 , ; Olson v. Eck’s Homemade Sausage Co. 194 Minn. 458 , ; Korthuis v. Soderling & Sons, 218 Minn. 342 , 16 N. W. (2d) 285 (many of our prior cases are here collected); see, also, Koktavy v. City of New Prague, 246 Minn. 550 , 75 N. W. (2d) 774 ; Graf v. Montgomery Ward & Co. Inc. 234

13 E.g., Krause v. Trustees of Hamline University, 243 Minn. 416 , 68 N. W. (2d) 124 ; Nesseth v. Skelly Oil Co. 176 Minn. 373 , .

8 See, Nesseth v. Skelly Oil Co. 176 Minn. 373, 374 , .

Co. 212 Minn. 183 , 3 N. W. (2d) 7 ; Nesseth v. Skelly Oil Co. 176 Minn. 373 , .

The right alone to fire, as we said in Nesseth v. Skelly Oil Co. 176 Minn. 373, 376 , , “affords adequate means for control.” The relation of employer and employe, and consequently the former’s liability to the latter, is not terminated by the mere fact that the employe by the employer’s direction or with his consent renders services to a third person.

491 ; Nesseth v. Skelly Oil Co. 176 Minn. 373 , 223 N.W.

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 , ; Lemkuhl v. Clark, 209 Minn. 276 , ; Byhardt v. Ballord, 209 Minn. 391 , ; Bolin v. Scheurer, 210 Minn. 15 , ; Larson v. Le Mere, 220 Minn. 25 , 18 N. W. (2d) 696 .

8(2), defines an employe as follows: “Every person in service of another under any contract of hire, expressed or implied, oral or written, * * In Nesseth v. Shelly Oil Co. 176 Minn. 373, 374 , , this court set out the real test as to whether a person is an independent contractor or an employe.

10 The real test, however, “as to whether a person is an independent contractor or an employe is whether the asserted employer, under his arrangement with the other party, has or has not any authoritative control of the latter with respect to the mannel and means in which and by which the details of work are to be performed” (Nes-seth v. Skelly Oil Co. 176 Minn. 373, 374 , ) as distinguished from the right which every owner or general contractor has to supervise and coordinate the general work.

In Nesseth v. Skelly Oil Co. 176 Minn. 373, 374 , , this court stated: “There can no longer be any doubt but what the real test as to whether a person is an independent contractor or an employe is whether the asserted employer, under his arrangement with the other party, has or has not any authoritative control of the latter with respect to the m

by the majority opinion; that Wilson was an agent or servant in charge of the filling station and not a lessee thereof, and therefore authorized to employ Washel for Tankar Gas, Inc. We think the following decisions sustain the finding that Washel was the employe of Tankar Gas, Inc. when he met death: Angell v. White Eagle O. & R. Co. 169 Minn. 183 , ; Nesseth v. Skelly Oil Co. 176 Minn. 373 , 223 N. W. *406 608.

We think Nesseth v. Skelly Oil Co. 176 Minn. 373 , ; Wass v. Bracker Const. Co. 185 Minn. 70 , ; Carter v. W. J. Dyer & Bro.

Herron v. Coolsaet Bros. 158 Minn. 522 , ; Nesseth v. Skelly Oil Co. 176 Minn. 373 , ; Larson v. Duluth Woolen Co. 181 Minn. 417 , ; Dahnert v. Township of Otisco, 196 Minn. 478 , .

The town board retained the right of control, and, under our decisions, Nesseth v. Skelly Oil Co. 176 Minn. 373 , , and Larson v. Duluth Woolen Co. 181 Minn. 417 , , that is one of the important factors in determining if an independent contractual relationship exists.

In Nesseth v. Skelly Oil Co. 176 Minn. 373 , 223 N.W.

Nesseth v. Skelly Oil Co. 176 Minn. 373 , , and cases therein cited; Wass v. Bracker Const. Co. 185 Minn. 70 , .

The cases of Nesseth v. Skelly Oil Co. 176 Minn. 373 , , and Barker v. Bemidji W. P. Co. 184 Minn. 366 , , review many of our cases.

held as a matter of law an employe-and not an independent contractor); Moore v. Kileen & Gillis, 171 Minn. 15 , (injured man owned *369 truck; used wherever he could get job; hauled camp supplies for defendant; not subject to control of defendant as to details; followed his own methods; finding of commission that he was independent contractor sustained); Nesseth v. Skelly Oil Co. 176 Minn. 373 , (person injured in unloading tank car of gasolene; he furnished trucks and equipment; hired and p

The following cases may be referred to: Angell v. White Eagle O. & R. Co. 169 Minn. 183 , ; Nesseth v. Skelly Oil Co. 176 Minn. 373 , ; Larson v. Duluth Woolen Co. 181 Minn. 417 , ; Borah v. Zoellner M. C. Co. (Mo.

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. 52

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. Koponen, 178 Minn. 133 , ; 6 Dunnell, Minn. Dig.

The cases involving instances of independent contractor are collated in Nesseth v. Skelly Oil Co. 176 Minn. 373 , .

In Nesseth v. Skelly Oil Co. 176 Minn. 373 , , the one held entitled to compensation was someAvhat in the position of Stoll and not at all in the position of Zarns.