Legal Opinion · Dissent

Gleason v. Geary

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided March 26, 1943No. 33,343PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Dissent

Some further facts, which I think control decision, should be stated. The Boote hatchery and defendant were engaged in the common enterprise of repairing the floor to which the construction and use of the catwalk was an incident. Defendant furnished the materials and part of the labor. Boote furnished part of the labor. Their employes worked side by side in tearing up the old floor, putting the reinforcing steel in place preparatory to pouring concrete, and in all the operations. Boote and defendant had two general purposes in view, viz.: (1) To save expense by using Boote's labor as far as…

2Cases cited22 opinions

  1. Mathison v. Minneapolis Street Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1914
  2. Christgau v. Woodlawn Cemetery Assn.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1940
  3. Rasmussen v. George Benz & SonsSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1926
  4. Kelly v. TyraSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1908
  5. Mulcahy v. DieudonneSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1908

17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Gleason v. GearySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1943

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API