The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

D was in partnership his father and operated an on-sale liquor tavern in Minneapolis. In 1937, the father transferred his one-half interest in the business to his D, in consideration of the D's promise to support and maintain his father during his lifetime, subject, however, to the understanding that the father would continue to assist in the operation of the business. P was not informed of the transfer and did not learn thereof until after the death of her husband. From 1937 until February 3, 1943, P accompanied her husband to the place of business around eight or nine in the morning, remained there until about one in the afternoon, and returned later in the evening. P prepared breakfast for her husband after arriving at the tavern and also prepared certain other meals at the tavern for him and D as well. She at times also performed such services as cleaning up and scrubbing, tending bar, and furnishing some meals for guests or patrons that might come to the place. P received no pay from D for services performed between September 1938 and February 3, 1943, but for services performed subsequently to the death of her husband, at D's request, she was paid by D. There was no contract, either express or implied, P and D for the performance of these services. There was no evidence that D ever expected to be required to pay for them. D moved for a directed verdict on the ground that P had failed to show an employment or agreement for hire. It was directed, and P appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.