Cited by

Again, in Barg v. Bousfield, 65 Minn. 355 , , we held that it was not error to show the existence of insurance as bearing on the issue of whether a person was an employer or an independent contractor.

See, also, Barg v. Bousfield, 65 Minn. 355 , ; Rait v. New England F. & C. Co. 66 Minn. 76 , ; Brown v. Douglas Lbr.

Anthony Falls Water Power Co. 129 Minn. 432 , ; Clark v. Goche, 148 Minn. 360 , ; Barg v. Bousfield, 65 Minn. 355 , ; Graseth v. N. W. Knitting Co. 128 Minn. 245 , ; Foley v. Bennett, 219 Minn. 249 , 17 N. W. (2d) 509 ; 4 Dunnell, Dig.

Barg v. Bousfield, 65 Minn. 355 , ; Benedict v. M. & St.

In Barg v. Bousfield, 65 Minn. 355 , , this rule from Shearman & Redfield on Negligence (4th ed.) § 164, is applied and approved: “The true test, as it seems to us, by which to determine whether one who renders service to another does so as a contractor or not, is to ascertain whether he renders the service in the course of an independe

564; Barg v. Bousfield, 65 Minn. 355 , ; Rait v. New England Furniture Co. 66 Minn. 76 , ; Gahagan v. Aermotor Co. 67 Minn. 252 , ; Johnson v. Crookston Lumber Co. 95 Minn. 142 , ; Corrigan v. Elsinger, 81 Minn. 42 , ; Ray v. Jones & Adams Co. 92 Minn. 101 , ; Anderson v. F

564; Barg v. Bousfield, 65 Minn. 355 , 68 N W. 45 ; Rait v. New England Furniture & Carpet Co. 66 Minn. 76 , ; Gahagan v. Aermotor Co. 67 Minn. 252 , ; Johnson v. Crookston Lumber Co. 95 Minn. 142 , ; Corrigan v. Elsinger, 81 Minn. 42 , ; Bay v. Jones & Adams Co. 92 Minn. 101 , ; A

In Barg v. Bousfield, 65 Minn. 355 , , the court cites with approval an extract from 1 Shearman and Bedfield, Negligence (4th ed.) § 164, to the effect that: “ ‘The true test, as it seems to us, by which to determine whether one who renders service to another does so as a contractor or not, is to ascertain whether he renders the service in

564; Barg v. Bousfield, 65 Minn. 355 , ; Rait v. New England F. & C. Co. 66 Minn. 76 , ; Klages v. Gillette Herzog Mnfg.

Barg v. Bousfield, 65 Minn. 355 , ; Rait v. New England F. & C. Co., 66 Minn. 76 , .

Barg v. Bousfield, 65 Minn. 355 , .

*151 Barg v. Bousfield, 65 Minn. 355 , .

The facts, as found by the jury and justified by the evidence, bring the case within the rule of the following cases in this court, in addition to the Carlin case, which we follow and apply: Kaillen v. Northwestern Bedding Co., 46 Minn. 187 , ; Barg v. Bousfield, 65 Minn. 355 , ; Abel v. Butler-Ryan Co., 66 Minn. 16 , ; Stiller v. Bohn Mnfg.

In Barg v. Bousfield, 65 Minn. 355 , , the rule was declared as follows: “Where one who performs work for another represents the will of that other, not only as to the result, but also as to the means by which that result is accomplished, he is not an independent contractor, but the agent of that other, who is responsible for his acts and o

The evidence was in line with that held competent in the case of Barg v. Bousfield, 65 Minn. 355 , .

Barg v. Bousfield, 65 Minn. 355 , .

The case of Barg v. Bousfield, 65 Minn. 355 , , relied on in support of the claim, is not in point; for the indemnity policy in the case cited was received in evidence as having a bearing on the question whether the person who executed the work, in the doing of which plaintiff was injured, was an independent contractor.