Case ID: minn_22/html/0040-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Gileillan, C. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Mary Borland vs. Dorilus Morrison.
    June 16, 1875.
    The sufficiency of evidence to sustain the verdict considered, and the order denying a new trial affirmed.
    Action for wages, brought in the municipal court of the city of Minneapolis. The only question made at the trial was, whether the defendant, in operating the cotton mill where plaintiff was employed, was acting on his own account or as an officer of the Minneapolis Cotton Manufacturing Company, a corporation. The jury found for the plaintiff, a new trial ivas refused, and defendant appealed.
    
      Merrick & Morrison, for appellant.
    
      J. L. Himes, for respondent.
   Gileillan, C. J.

We see no reason to disturb tbe verdict in this case ; indeed, we do not see how the jury could have found any other. It is true, the defendant proved that there was a corporation called the Minneapolis Cotton Manufacturing Company, of which defendant was a director, 'but he offered no evidence that it was conducting the mill in which plaintiff was employed. Plaintiff was employed by the overseer of the room in which she worked, (he being authorized to hire help, within certain limits,) with the knowledge of the general manager of the business of the mill, who was employed as such by defendant. Prom this the hiring of plaintiff was, in law, a hiring by defendant.

Order affirmed.