Cited by

Lindvall v. Woods, 41 Minn. 212 , , 4 L.R.A.

See also Lindvall v. Woods, 41 Minn. 212 , , 4 L.R.A.

And these propositions, among others,, are laid down: While the rank of the servant performing the master’s absolute duties is immaterial (Lindvall v. Woods, 41 Minn. 212 , , 4 L.R.A.

Is the case within Lindvall v. Woods, 41 Minn. 212 , , 4 L.R.A.

Compare Lindvall v. Woods, 41 Minn. 212 , , 4 L.R.A.

285; Drymala v. Thompson, 26 Minn 40, ; Lindvall v. Woods, 41 Minn. 212, 216 , , 4 L. R. A. 793; Tierney v. Minneapolis & St.

Co., 97 Minn. 248 , , Lindvall v. Woods, 41 Minn. 212 , , 4 L. R. A. 793, Jemming v. Great Northern Ry.

For all general purposes, under the doctrine of Lindvall v. Woods, 41 Minn. 212 , , 4 L. R. A. 793, the foreman and respondent were fellow servants, engaged in the same general work.

In Lindvall v. Woods, 41 Minn. 212 , , 4 L. R. A. 793, the rule is announced that it is not the rank of an employee, or his authority over other employees, but the nature of the duty or service he performs, which determines whether he is a vice principal or a fellow servant, and that, whenever a master delegates to another the performance

Lindvall v. Woods, 41 Minn. 212 , ; Perras v. A. Booth & Co., 82 Minn. 191 , , ; Brown v. Minneapolis & St.

And as remarked by Judge Mitchell in Lindvall v. Woods, 41 Minn. 212 , , the same employee may occupy the dual capacity of vice principal as to some matters, and of fellow servant as to others.

Lindvall v. Woods, 41 Minn. 212 , ; Vogt v. Honstain, 81 Minn. 174 , .

Lindvall v. Woods, 41 Minn. 212 , ; Bergquist v. City of Minneapolis, 42 Minn. 471 , ; Marsh v. Herman, 47 Minn. 537 , ; Soutar v. Minneapolis I. Ele.

The rule in this state is stated in Lindvall v. Woods, 41 Minn. 212 , , and illustrated in Carlson v. N. W. Tel.

Lindvall v. Woods, 41 Minn. 212 , .

Lindvall v. Woods, 41 Minn. 212 , ; Fraser v. Red River Lumber Co., 45 Minn. 235 , ; Marsh v. Herman, 47 Minn. 537 , ; Soutar v. Minneapolis Int.

Now, the rule laid down in Lindvall v. Woods, 41 Minn. 212 , , is applicable here, viz.

Lindvall v. Woods, 41 Minn. 212 , .

In the case of Lindvall v. Woods, 41 Minn. 212 , , this court had the question under consideration, and as a result of a review of its previous decisions, and upon principle, reached the *433 conclusion: “That it is not the rank of the employé, or his authority over other employés, but the nature of the duty or service which he performs, that is deci

The place, the plan, and the manner of putting up these appliances had been especially and unconditionally delegated to the foreman, and herein is one of the distinctions which may be made between this and the somewhat noted case of Lindvall v. Woods, 41 Minn. 212 , , on which counsel for defendant mainly rely.

It is urged that within the rules laid down in Lindvall v. Woods, 41 Minn. 212, ( ,) and Fraser v. Red River Lumber Co., 45 Minn. 235 , ( ,) the plaintiff cannot recover, because the men engaged in building the staging were his fellow servants.

349 ;) Lindvall v. Woods, 41 Minn. 212 , ( 42 N. W. Rep.

Co., 38 Minn. 117 , (35 N. W. Rep.866;) Lindvall v. Woods, 41 Minn. 212 , ( 42 N. W. Rep.

Lindvall v. Woods, 41 Minn. 212 , ( 42 N. W. Rep.