Hebranson v. Fairmont Creamery

• Decision Date: 04 November 1932
• Docket Number: No. 29009.,29009.
• Citation: 187 Minn. 260,245 N.W. 138
• Parties: HEBRANSON v. FAIRMONT CREAMERY et al.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

245 N.W. 138

187 Minn. 260

HEBRANSON v. FAIRMONT CREAMERY et al.

No. 29009.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

November 4, 1932.

Certiorari from Industrial Commission.

Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Mrs. H. H. Hebranson, claimant, against the Fairmont Creamery, employer, and the United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company, insurer, for compensation for the death of H. H. Hebranson, deceased employee. To review a decision of the Industrial Commission denying compensation, the claimant brings certiorari.

Decision affirmed.

G. P. Mahoney and John S. Morrison, both of Minneapolis, and R. E. Faricy, of St. Paul, for petitioner-relator.

J. F. Boyles, of Minneapolis, for respondent.

HOLT, J.

Certiorari to review a decision of the industrial commission denying relator compensation for the accidental death of her husband arising out of and in the course of his employment.

Compensation was denied solely because it was found that on and prior to June 30, 1931, the day of the accident, "the Fairmont Creamery, the above named employer, was conducting and operating a farm and had not elected to be bound by the Minnesota Workmen's Compensation Act (Gen. St. 1923, § 4261 et seq., as amended), and part 2 thereof (Gen. St. 1923, § 4268 et seq., as amended) and that the injury to said employee resulting in his death occurred while engaged as a farm laborer for said employer." Hence it is incumbent on relator, if she is to prevail, to show that this finding is not sustained by the evidence. There is no dispute concerning the facts. The Fairmont Creamery, the employer, is a corporation, with headquarters at Omaha, Neb. It also operates a creamery at Moorhead, this state. About a mile south of Moorhead it owns and runs a 220-acre farm. The manager called it a "demonstration farm." From 1,000 to 2,000 turkeys a year are raised thereon. During the summer there are kept as many as 2,700 hogs. A herd of approximately 125 cattle is kept, of which about 60 are milch cows. The surplus animals as they become fit for market are disposed of. Some 14 to 16 horses are kept at the farm. Some of these are used upon the ten milk routes operated by the creamery. The farm does not produce enough feed for all these animals. As much as 5,000 or 6,000 gallons of buttermilk is hauled from the creamery daily and fed to the hogs and turkeys. Hay and feed are bought. What is bought for the farm and the wages of the laborers are paid by the creamery and all income from the farm goes to it. No separate account of the farming business is kept. The deceased workman came to the farm on June 30, 1931, seeking work. He was at once employed at $1.50 per day and lunch, and set to work on the haymow in the barn. In the afternoon he was found unconscious on the floor, having fallen down from the mow, and so injured himself that death came within two days thereafter.

A person or corporation may be engaged in two or more businesses or occupations. Benoy v. Torkelson, 161 Minn. 223, 201 N. W. 312; Durrin v. Meehl, 163 Minn. 325, 204 N. W. 22. The farm was not a necessary part of the creamery business. Undoubtedly it was thought that, in its operation, if a number of turkeys and hogs were kept thereon a profitable use might be made of a large part of a by-product of the creamery, the buttermilk. It is evident that the 60 milch cows could not furnish enough milk for the creamery or for the ten milk routes operated by the creamery by the horses and driver kept and boarded at the farm. The fact that some 5,000 to 6,000 gallons of buttermilk were procured from the creamery daily for the...