Thе employe was awarded compensation, and the employer brings certiorari to review the decision.
The employe was a tenant of an apartment in one of the employer’s apartment buildings. The employer owned a duplex and two fourplex buildings in which there were residential accommodations for ten families and also a store building, all situated in the residential portion of Minnеapolis.
The employer operates a haberdashery business in the downtown portion of the city. He devotes аll of his time to this business. The buildings, which he rents, are low rental properties. The monthly rent for an apartment ranges from $15 to $18 pеr month. The employer as landlord did not render any services other than those to be mentioned. Janitor services, heat, light, and similar services and conveniences were not supplied.
The employer hired the employe as a regulаr part-time worker to collect the rents monthly from the other tenants and to make minor repairs when and as needed. The commission found that the agreed compensation was five dollars per month, which was to be paid as a crеdit on the employe’s rent. The parties agreed in the spring of 1938 that the employe should remove and replacе screens and storm windows and doors when the seasons required, for which the compensation was 15 cents, paid in cash, fоr each window and door.
On November 25, 1938, while removing a screen preparatory to replacing it with a storm window, the sсreen slipped, hit the employe on the head, and caused him to fall from a stepladder, on which he was then standing in doing his work, to the ground, as a result of which he sustained severe injuries.
The employer contends (1) that the employment was casual and (2) that it was not in the regular course of his business.
1. The contention that the employment was casual is based upon the propositions that there were two contracts of employment — one for collecting the monthly rents and making thе minor repairs and the other for removing and replacing the screens and storm windows and doors and that as to the lattеr the employe’s *616 services were rendered only casually from time to time as needed. He rests liis contention on the employe’s testimony that the work of removing and replacing the screen and storm windows and doors did not have anything to do. with the collecting of the rents. The employe stated: “That was extra work. I had a different agreement for that work.” It is reаsonably clear that what the employe meant was that the compensation for collecting the rents and making repairs did not cover the other work and that he was to be compensated for such work under the special arrangement. That there was only one contract of hiring under which the employe Avas to be paid an agreed comрensation for extra Avork seems to be a reasonable construction of the evidence. The employer’s OAvn tеstimony gives support to this vieAV. The evidence sustains the finding of the commission that there was only one employment for all the services to be rendered.
Part-time employment under which the employe is to render services at regular recurring periods is not casual. Hoard v. Sears Roebuck & Co. Inc.
2. Next it is claimed that at the time of injury the employe was not employеd in the usual course of the employer’s business. The exclusionary clause, L. 1937, c. 64, § 4 (3 Mason Minn. St. 1940 Supp. § 4272-4), reads in part as folloAvs:
“This Aсt shall not be construed or held to apply to any * ® * persons Avhose employment at the time of the injury is casual, and nоt in the usual course of the trade, business, profession, or occupation of his employer.”
The employer urges that his OAvning and renting the buildings did not constitute his usual trade, business, profession or occupation is settled by our decisions in Jackson v. Cathсart & Maxfield, Inc.
We shall assume, but not decide, that so much of his contention is established. But that is not decisive. The employment at the timе of injury must be both casual and not in the usual
*617
course of the employer’s business to exclude the employe from the benеfits of the act. One ground alone is not sufficient; both must concur to constitute grounds for exclusion. Colosimo v. Giacomo,
In the cases of Jackson v. Cathcart & Maxfield, Inc.
The employer contends that the word “casual” is meaningless and that where it aрpears that the injury did not occur in the usual course of the employer’s business the case is to be excluded from the аct upon that sole ground. The word “casual” is not meaningless. Our prior decisions
supra
settle that proposition. The American workmen’s compensation acts are patterned after the English act, which uses the conjunctive “and” and which has bеen construed as requiring that an employment be both casual and not in the usual course of the employer’s business, etс., to be excluded. The conjunctive “and” and the disjunctive “or” have been used advisedly in this country in exclusionary clauses. The word “and” is used where the purpose is to adopt the restricted
*618
language of the English act as interpreted by the English decisions requiring both grounds for exclusion. The word “or” is used where the intention is to expand the scope of such clause by making either one of the grounds operate to exclude. Gaynor’s Case,
The employe is entitled to compensation.
The decision is affirmed.
Respondent is allowed $75 attorney’s fees in this court.