Cited by

Anderson v. Jensen, 289 Minn. 432 , Jones v. Excelsior Laundry Co., 183 Minn. 531 , 237 N.W.

Anderson v. Jensen, 289 Minn. 432 , 184 N. W. (2d) 774 ; Jones v. Excelsior Laundry Co. 183 Minn. 531 , .

Numerous authorities upholding this general principle are collated in Jones v. Excelsior Laundry Co. 183 Minn. 531 , .

Quoting the rule set forth in Jones v. Excelsior Laundry Co. 183 Minn. 531 , , we said in the second Baker case ( 222 Minn. 462 , 25 N. W. [2d] 221) that the Industrial Commission having based its findings upon fact questions— “* * * [a] finding upon a question of fact cannot be disturbed unless consideration of the evidence and the inferences permissible therefrom clearly requ

6 See, Chillstrom v. Trojan Seed Co. 242 Minn. 471 , 65 N. W. (2d) 888 ; Rinne v. W. C. Griffis Co. 234 Minn. 146 , 47 N. W. (2d) 872 ; Graf v. Montgomery Ward Co. Inc. 234 Minn. 485 , 49 N. W. (2d) 797 ; Jones v. Excelsior Laundry Co. 183 Minn. 531 , .

See, Jones v. Excelsior Laundry Co. 183 Minn. 531 , ; Richter v. Shoppe Plumbing & Heating Co. supra.

Co. 247 Minn. 288 , 76 N. W. (2d) 801 ; Casey v. Northern States Power Co. 247 Minn. 295 , 77 N. W. (2d) 67 ; Erickson v. Knutson, 237 Minn. 187 , *324 54 N. W. (2d) 118 ; Jones v. Excelsior Laundry Co. 183 Minn. 531 , ; Westereng v. City of Morris, 205 Minn. 219 , ; Shoren v. United States Rubber Co. (R. I.) 140 A. (2d) 768; 21 Dunnell, Dig.

Co. 230 Minn. 315 , 41 N. W. (2d) 433 ; Johnson v. Nash-Finch Co. 197 Minn. 616 , ; Jones v. Excelsior Laundry Co. 183 Minn. 531 , .

Furlong v. Northwestern Casket Co. 190 Minn. 552 , ; Jones v. Excelsior Laundry Co. 183 Minn. 531 , .

2 Casey v. Northern States Power Co. 247 Minn. 295 , 77 N. W. (2d) 67 ; Erickson v. Knutson, 237 Minn. 187 , 54 N. W. (2d) 118 ; Jones v. Excelsior Laundry Co. 183 Minn. 531 , ; Westereng v. City of Morris, 205 Minn. 219 , ; 6 Dunnell, Dig.

Furlong v. Northwestern Casket Co. 190 Minn. 552 , ; Jones v. Excelsior Laundry Co. 183 Minn. 531 , .

6 See, also, Tillman v. Stanley Iron Works, 222 Minn. 421 , 24 N. W. (2d) 903 ; Jones v. Excelsior Laundry Co. 183 Minn. 531 , ; Walker v. Minnesota Steel Co. 167 Minn. 475 , .

Under these circumstances, we can do nothing but affirm under the well-established rule that— “* * * A finding upon a question of fact cannot be disturbed unless consideration of the evidence and the inferences permissible therefrom clearly require [s] reasonable minds to adopt a conclusion contrary to the one at which the commission arrived.” Jones v. Excelsior Laundry Co. 183 Minn. 531, 532 , ; Wester-eng v. City of Morris, 205 Minn. 219 , .

*308 We have so often stated the rule that a finding of the commission on a question of fact cannot be disturbed unless consideration of the evidence and the inferences permissible therefrom clearly require reasonable minds to adopt a conclusion contrary to the one at which the commission arrived (Jones v. Excelsior Laundry Co. 183 Minn. 531 , ; Westereng v. City of Morris, 205 Minn. 219 , ; 6 Dunnell, Dig.

Jones v. Excelsior Laundry Co. 183 Minn. 531 , .

*462 In passing upon the sufficiency of the evidence upon which the qommission has, as here, based its findings on fact questions, we apply the rule laid down in Jones v. Excelsior Laundry Co. 183 Minn. 531, 532 , , where this court said: “* * * A finding upon a question of fact cannot be disturbed unless consideration of the evidence and the inferences permissible therefrom clearly require reasonable minds to adopt a conclusion contrary to the one at which the commission arrived.

Westereng v. City of Morris, supra; Jones v. Excelsior Laundry Co. 183 Minn. 531 , ; Wicks v. Northland Milk & Ice Cream Co. 184 Minn. 540 , .

That being the situation presented to us, we must affirm, as we have so often done in the past under the rules referred to in such cases as Jones v. Excelsior Laundry Co. 183 Minn. 531 , ; Krueger v. King Midas Mill.

The only two authorities cited by relator clearly so hold, vis., Jones v. Excelsior Laundry Co. 183 Minn. 531 , ; Sivald v. Ford Motor Co. 188 Minn. 463 , .

at a ■fact issue was presented and, having been determined against relators, that it is binding upon us. This is so because “a finding ■upon a question of fact cannot be disturbed unless consideration of 'the evidence and the inferences permissible therefrom clearly require reasonable minds to adopt a conclusion contrary to the one .at which the commission arrived.” Jones v. Excelsior Laundry Co. 183 Minn. 531, 532 , .

We have frequently said: “A finding upon a question of fact cannot be disturbed unless consideration of the evidence and the inferences permissible therefrom clearly require reasonable minds to adopt a conclusion contrary to the one at which the commission arrived.” Jones v. Excelsior Laundry Co. 183 Minn. 531, 532 , .

In his brief he correctly states the rule: “A finding upon a question of fact cannot be disturbed unless consideration of the evidence and the inferences permissible therefrom clearly require reasonable minds to adopt a conclusion contrary to the one at which the commission arrived.” Jones v. Excelsior Laundry Co. 183 Minn. 531, 532 , , and cases therein cited.

“A finding upon a question of fact cannot be disturbed unless consideration of the evidence and the inferences permissible therefrom clearly requires reasonable minds to adopt a conclusion contrary to the one at which the commission arrived.” Jones v. Excelsior Laundry Co. 183 Minn. 531, 532 , .

Jones v. Excelsior Laundry Co. 183 Minn. 531 , ; Delich v. Thompson-Starret Co. 175 Minn. 612 , .

We follow the familiar rule: “A finding upon a question of fact cannot be disturbed unless consideration of the evidence and the inferences permissible therefrom clearly require reasonable minds to adopt a conclusion contrary to the one at which the commission arrived.” Jones v. Excelsior Laundry Co. 183 Minn. 531, 532 , .