On cross-examination defendant's counsel asked the complaining witness a question regarding a civil action which it was intimated she had brought against the defendant. An objection made by plaintiff's attorney was sustained, and that ruling is assigned as error. Little or no argument is presented in support of this assignment of error, and it might well be treated as waived. The materiality of the testimony sought to be elicited is not apparent, and we cannot say that the court erred in ruling as it did. And we are quite clear that the ruling in no event was prejudicial.
This disposes of all the errors assigned and argued on this appeal. It follows from what has been said that the judgment and order appealed from must be affirmed. It is so ordered.
Grace, C. J., and ROBINSON, BIRDZELL, and BRONSON, JJ., concur.
FRED W. ASCH, Respondent, V. THE WASHBURN LIGNITE
COAL COMPANY, a corporation, and WALKER D. HINES,
Director General of Railroads, and as such Director of Minneapolis,
St. Paul and Sault Ste. Marie Railway Company, a corporation,
Appellants.
(186 N. W. 757.)
Master and servant-relation created by transfer of service to third person.
1. One in the general service of another may be transferred to the service of a third person so as to become the latter's servant with all the legal consequences of the new relation; but the relation is not changed, as a matter of law, merely because the servant is sent to do certain work for such third party who has made a bargain with the master for the performance of such service, even though the third party, under his arrangement with the master, pays wages directly to the servant for his services. In order to establish the relation of master and servant between the servant and such third person it must appear that the servant has expressly or by implication consented to the transfer of his services to the new master and to accept him as his master during the time of such service.
