Cited by

See, Farnam v. Linden Hills Congregational Church, 276 Minn. 84 , Billmayer v. Sanford, 177 Minn. 465 , 225 N.W.

Respondents cite as controlling, Jackson v. Cathcart & Maxfield, Inc., supra, and Billmayer v. Sanford, 177 Minn. 465 , .

In Billmayer v. Sanford, 177 Minn. 465, 467 , , this court said: ' * '* where the employment cannot be characterized as permanent or periodically regular, but occurs by chance, or with the intention and understanding on the part of both employer and employe that it shall not be continuous, it is casual.” The circumstances under which rel

9 Billmayer v. Sanford, 177 Minn. 465, 467 , .

casual, and not in the usual course of the trade, business, profession, or occupation of his employer; * * In Billmayer v. Sanford, 177 Minn. 465, 467 , , we said: *117 a* * * where the employment cannot be characterized as permanent or periodically regular, but occurs by chance, or with the intention and understanding on the part of both employer and employe that it shall not be continuous, it is casual.” 9 Since decedent had driven at least

In Billmayer v. Sanford, 177 Minn. 465, 467 , , this court defined casual employment as follows: “* * * What is a casual employment?

They cite and rely on Eichholz v. Shaft, 166 Minn. 339 , ; Sink v. Pharaoh, 170 Minn. 137 , , 50 A. L. R. 1173; Billmayer v. Sanford, 177 Minn. 465 , ; Jackson v. Cathcart & Maxfield, Inc. 201 Minn. 526 , ; and Chisholm v. Davis, 207 Minn. 614 , .

ployment at the time of the injury is casual, and not in the usual course of the trade, business, profession, or occupation of his employer.” The employer urges that his OAvning and renting the buildings did not constitute his usual trade, business, profession or occupation is settled by our decisions in Jackson v. Cathcart & Maxfield, Inc. 201 Minn. 526 , ; Billmayer v. Sanford, 177 Minn. 465 , ; and Sink v. Pharaoh, 170 Minn. 137 , , 50 A. L. R. 1173.

One of the commissioners dissented, being of the view that relators were not engaged in any "business within the meaning of the workmen's compensation law," and that this case was controlled by Billmayer v. Sanford, 177 Minn. 465 , 225 N.W.

Billmayer v. Sanford, 177 Minn. 465 , 225 N.W.

Billmayer v. Sanford, 177 Minn. 465 , , and the authorities there cited from other jurisdictions clearly establish this employment to be casual.

Lennon v. District Court, 138 Minn. 103, 106 , , as referring “to the employer’s ordinary vocation and not to every occasional, incidental, or insignificant work he may have to do.” See Billmayer v. Sanford, 177 Minn. 465 , ; Sink v. Pharaoh, 170 Minn. 137 , , 50 A. L. R. 1173.

Billmayer v. Sanford, 177 Minn. 465 , .