With so much proof that the right of control was not only present but exercised, there is no ground upon which we can reverse the finding that respondent was an employe rather than an independent contractor. That respondent may have taken independent sawing contracts for others or even that such was his habit was relevant only as collateral evidence. It was in nowise controlling.
The case is ruled by Herron v. Coolsaet Bros. 158 Minn. 522" court="Minn." date_filed="1924-04-04" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/herron-v-coolsaet-bros-7981589?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="7981589">158 Minn. 522,198 N.W. 134" court="Minn." date_filed="1924-04-04" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/herron-v-coolsaet-bros-7981589?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="7981589">198 N.W. 134; Bosel v. Henderson Holding Co. 167 Minn. 72" court="Minn." date_filed="1926-04-09" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/bosel-v-henderson-holding-co-3512521?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="3512521">167 Minn. 72,208 N.W. 421" court="Minn." date_filed="1926-04-09" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/bosel-v-henderson-holding-co-3512521?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="3512521">208 N.W. 421; Lynch v. Hutchinson Produce Co. 169 Minn. 329" court="Minn." date_filed="1926-12-10" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/lynch-v-hutchinson-produce-co-3512616?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="3512616">169 Minn. 329,211 N.W. 313" court="Minn." date_filed="1926-12-10" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/lynch-v-hutchinson-produce-co-3512616?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="3512616">211 N.W. 313, and the other cases involving the same issue reviewed in Moore v. Kileen Gillis, 171 Minn. 15" court="Minn." date_filed="1927-03-25" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/moore-v-kileen--gillis-3506027?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="3506027">171 Minn. 15, 213 N.W. 49" court="Minn." date_filed="1927-03-25" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/moore-v-kileen--gillis-3506027?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="3506027">213 N.W. 49, where the decision against compensation was put upon the absence not only of actual supervision but also the right to control. The latter is ordinarily the decisive thing, but both were present in this case.
The order under review will be affirmed with an allowance of $75 to respondent for attorney's fees.
So ordered.