Korovilas v. Bon Ton Renovating Co.
Decision Date | 09 February 1945 |
Docket Number | 33923. |
Citation | 17 N.W.2d 502,219 Minn. 294 |
Parties | KOROVILAS v. BON TON RENOVATING CO., Inc., et al. |
Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
1. Under our Workmen's Compensation Act, only those are employes who perform service for hire and to whom the employer directly pays wages.
2. In determining whether a corporate officer is an employe consideration must be given to the degree of control exercised over the corporate business, the actual business relations between corporation and officer, the type of services performed, whether the officer is subject to any control by the corporation in his activities, and other factors.
3. Held, upon facts shown by evidence and summarized in opinion that relator was not an employe of respondent Bon Ton Renovating Company, Inc.
Ernest F. Jacobson and Mark F. Crotty, both of Minneapolis, for relator.
Gillette & Meagher, of Minneapolis, for respondents.
Certiorari brings for review an order of the Industrial Commission reversing the findings and award of compensation of a referee.
In this case as in Bendix v. Bendix Co. 217 Minn. 439, 14 N.W.2d 464, the question is whether at the time of relator's injury he occupied the status of an employer or that of an employe.
The controlling finding of the commission, upon which its order is founded, is thus stated: 'That on June 6, 1943, Arist Korovilas was not an employe of the Bon Ton Renovating Co Inc.'
The facts are these: Three brothers, Arist (relator), Nick, and Gus, formed a corporation in 1926, Arist receiving 30 shares and his brothers 15 shares each. These men have since been the corporation. Arist has been its president and treasurer and since 1939 to the day of the accident, June 6, 1943, its secretary also. Nick was vice president. Gus was secretary until he left for Greece in 1939, since which time he has not been in this country, because of war conditions. The corporate records are few, and very little can be gathered from them. However, the record does contain the corporate articles; and on the back of a sheet in the sales book this appears:
Arist does not appear to have had any individual bank account. The only bank account was in the corporate name, but he had exclusive possession and control of the checkbook and the account so that no one else could make withdrawals from the fund. He made use of that account at and for his...
To continue reading
Request your trial