The sole question is whether or not claimant was an employee of the appellant. There is evidence to the effect that claimant was a handy man around the establishment who brought up bottles, tapped beer, helped in the kitchen, waited on table and made himself generally useful for his board, lodging, laundry, clothing and a few dollars in cash now and then. The board was justified in finding that the relationship of employer and employee existed within the intent and meaning...
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
- Updated daily.
- Uncompromising quality.
- Complete, Accurate, Current.
