Bittner v. Boyajohn & Barr, Inc.
Ohio Court of Appeals
1Opinion of the Court
*326OPINION
■By HORNBEOK, J.
A number of legal propositions were u,vged in the tidal court and others are presented here. It is conceded by plaintiff that some of the propositions advanced in the trial court were properly determined against the plaintiff, namely, that the plaintiff did not have in his service three or more workmen regularly in the same business within the meaning of §§14G5-G0 a«d 1488-61 GO, and that Perkins was not an employes ef plaintiff, but it is further Urged Here that Perkins ivas not émpioyéd by the pláiütiff Wilder a contract for hire, Wé aré satisfied that the trial court…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Vanbebber v. PlunkettOregon Supreme Court · 1895
- Pudas v. MattolaMichigan Supreme Court · 1912
- Parker v. ClemonsSupreme Court of Vermont · 1908