The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1866-02-19
LEGAL INTELLIGENCr.
IFor additional Legal Intelligence sec FIRST Page


SUPREME Court OF PKNNsYLvAN1A-Chie JUS
tice Woodward aud Justices Read and Agnew.-
Opinions were read in the following cases this
morning by Agnew, J:-Louisa Hunt vs. The
Pennsylvania Railroad Company Certificate
from Mist Prus. We agree with our brother
who tried this cause at Nisi Prius that the true
Interpretation of the contract between the
Railroad company and Allison, the contractor,
did not make the company liable for the man.
ner IN which he performed his work. The word
"lnstructonsn used in the agreement referred to
the kind of structure, design, materials oombi-
nations, and all matters pertaining to the plan
ming OF the building 10 be erected. But as to
the mode of accomplishing the work which the
contractor undertook, he was lett 10 his own
skill and judgment. His contract vas to do
the work in substantial and workmanlike
manner, and he was bound, therefore, to bring
to ITS execution the degree Of skill and care
necessary to perform his covenant
We may also remark upon the contract, us
bearing upon the other question, that the per-
sons employed upon the work were necessarily
10 be hired by the contractor, who undertook
the whole. By its terms the Company we're to
be involved in the work or employment of
hands only If, upon his failure, they availed
themselves of the option given by the agreement
to treat his contract as forfeited, do the work,
and charge HIM with the cost. Now the decla
ration ave1red, and 1t was materia. to prove,
that the deceased was employed by the Com
pany, TOR the grdUdnlen alleged was the duty to
provide sound material and sklltul persons
in the erection OF the building, and their
neglect in this respect causing the injury and
death OF the deceased. But there was not' q
spark OF proof of his employment by them,
While evidence showed that the work OF setting
up the iron Tafters, which fell and caused his
injury, was done by Allison, the contractor
| Now this fact coupled with the contract which
! required this work to be done by him, lett no
| doubt that the deceased was employed by him
But 1t is sufficient to say the burthen OF the proof
| to show lis employment by the COMPANY de-
! yolved on the plaintiff, and she gave no evidence
! oil 1t. ...
| This brings us TO the chief point in the argu-
| meDt of the plaintiff in error, that the Company
! was bound to furnish sound materials, and a
: suitable and sale plan of constructing the sup
port of the ratters, and that their fall afforded a
presumption that either the materials or the
! design of the structure was insufficient to sup.
! port the ponderous iron rafters, when hosted
/ upon their columns. Upon this assumption of
| the fact, the Judge, it is said, was asked to in
! strUct the jury that the company was answer
! able for negligence. This has two answers 1t
was most distinctly proved by the plaintiff, and
| without conflict OF evidence, that the falling of
the ralters was owing to their not being prop rly
| braced when hoisted. There was not a little
| of evidence to show that either the materials
! or the supporting structure was at fault.
| The next answer is, that the pon.s did not
| call on the JUDGE to instruct upon the
inference as to materials and structure, but that
| the falling was proof of negligence and unski'-
fulness Cd the part of the person performing the
| work; and that they must account Tor the fall
ing by proof OF some cause not arising in negll-
! gence or fault OF the performance of it. The
| points therefore, inv yolved the character OF ALI
son, the contractor, and his mode Of performing
/ the work, and are founded on the idea tnat both
| be and the deceased we're employees under the
| same principal But here the proof wholly
| tailed, Tor the plaintiff had not proved that ALI
| son and the deceased weIe employed under the
| defendants as a common principal; while the
| defendants had shown that Allison was a con
/ tractor, not mere euploye, and that the de
ceased, if employed by either, must have been
employ ed by Allison. I-.-
The learned Judge refused the plaintiff points
! in view of the facts and in this he did not err
| am not aware that it was ever held IN any case
| that one who employs a contractor to erect g
| building, or to do any other mechanical work
becomes guarantor to all the employ es of the
| contractor for his skill and care in performing
| the work. In such case the contractor is the
! principal of the persons whom he employs, aud
ii his character for sklltulness and carefulnesi
to inquire into it. These views render the other
assignments OF error OF no consequence. Judg
ment affirmed.
John B. Heyl VS.. The Philadelphia, Whining
| ton, and Raimore Railroad Company and thu
Southwark Railroad Company. Appeal from
Common Pleas OF Philadelphia. Judgmen
Wstar's Estate-wistar's Appeal McIntyre'
| Appeal. From Common Pleas of Philadelphia
Decree that accountant is to pay $l274'S6 ant
costs of these appeals.
Estate OF Premium Loan Association-Kister
books Appeal. Decree affirmed, at costs o
appellant.
SUPREME COURT AT NIsI PRIUs-Justic
Strorg.-Ashmead vs.. The Protestant Episcopa
Book Society. Before reported. The case wa
given to the jury this morning, uLder the chars
of the Court and they retired to agree upon
verdict. They had not agreed up to the time o
closing our report.