New Ulm weekly review. [volume] (New Ulm, Minn.) 1878-1892, 1879-09-03

M RE lie WEE
OF such employee or agent Of the COM
pany in the performance OF the work
OF such company.
This rule il: snpported by authorities
Of equal weight though less in number
than the contrary rule, and in our
Judgment, by the greater weight Of
reason and sound principle. =
Comment is superfluOus, but quere.
Did Jacks do any work IN common
with the day laborer, the Plff; was he
at work at all with him or have any
intercourse or connection with him
other than to use some very harsh and
strong language to him on this sole
and only occasion they were thrown
together?
KENTUCKY. The case Of T.. & N. r.
Il. v. Collins S Am T. r.. N. s. Chief
j. Robertson, certainly very distin-
guished jurist. nses the following
pointed languages: ''Among common
laborers constituting a distinct class,
all standing on the same platform Of
equality and power, and engaged in
merely Incidental but independant ser.
vice, no one of them, as between him
self and his co.equal, is the corpora.
tion's agent, and when this is not the
facts but the employers are SO far re-
moved from each other that the one is
bound to obey the directions of the
other 80 that the superior may be fair
~ regarded as representing the master,
we think 1t more consistent with rea.
son justice to treat the matter as not
coming within the principle of the
rule. = u,
Which decision Wrings from Mr..
Redtield the acknowledgement that he
is compelled to the conclusion that the
opinion is altogather entirely sound in
its principles. If so "Fi1t iust;sin
rNat coelwms. !" And in this same note
OF MI. Redfeld, mark the language 273.
5 Am. Register Sup ssIt is safe there
fore the state that all the cases both
English and American maintain the
general rule to the extent Of those wito
are strictly fellow servants in the same
department of service.
NEBRASKA. Curcnit court United
States. Judge Dillon, in U. p. r. v.
Ads Frost IL Am L. Reg. N. S. lOl,
lays down this rule adverse, it is be.
lleved, to deft's position, that ssWhen
a servant under the orders and control
Of another superior servant is directed
by the latter to do an act not in the
usual course of his duty, and while SO
engaged is injured by the negligence
of the superior, the master is liable to
the servant injured Plff. was in.
jured by the negligence of 4 boss of a
shop gang Of workmen. .f :.
MISSOURI: In Brothers v, Cartier
So. 372.-l4 Am r. 424. A superin.
tendent who has entire COZ troll of ana
work &c. is held not to be a fellow
servant, and for the negligence of such
the master is liable AZ Id 567. In case
OF Lewis v. st. Louis X. 50 Mo. 405 the
court reviewing many authorities and
citing Red. on R. 539 where it is said
Corporations should always be re-.
garded as present in IN act performed
by their agents within the rance OF
their employment holds it the duty
of section fOremen to keeptrac in re.
pair and see everything is safe, notice
to him was notice to the company, and
his negligence was the company's neg
ligence. 1t is true, in one sense, the
section foreman whose duty it was tc
superintend the track and keep it clea,
and safe was a fellow servant. as are
all to a certain extent fellow servants
who are engaged in the same business
or enterprise, but he represented the
company in the line of his duty. HI
was the company in that regard--and
his negligence was the cOmpany's neg
ligence in matters in which it owed 4
duty and obligation to it's servants ii
Id 567. -:E
New YORK. Here, admit, very con
Trajectory opinions of those high in
the exposition of the law may be
found. The case of Flike v, r. r. S:
N, Y. $50 is an authority in point as tc
liability. Church c. j. says: 'sThe
corporation is liable for negligence Q,
want of proper care in respect to such
acts and duties as it is required to per
form & discharge as master and prin
cipal, without regard to rank or title OF
the agent entrusted with their per
Torrance, as to such acts the agent
occupies the place of the corporation
and the latter should be deemed pre-
| sent and consequently liable for the
manner in which they are performed
In the general arrangement and man
agement of the business he is in the
discharge of the duty Pertaining to the
principal.
Perhaps in would not be amiss to
enquire whose duty was it to pick ul
the wrecks in the case at bar & who
had the exclusive control and entire
management; certainly not Brown, see
case of Rose v. B. & A. X. r. 9 Am
R. R. SIS, to same point 70 N. Y. 1876
boy case, the case of Hoffnagle v. r.
SIS Id 608 & case of Bessie v. N. S. G.
r. 70 N. Y. would seem adverse but
think the court in each case admits
the correctness of G. j. Church's law.
Again it is said in Malone v. Hath.
away 81 N. Y. When the servant, by
whose acts of negligence or want OF
skill, other servants of the common
employer have received injury, is the
alter Ego of the master to whom he
left everything, then the middleman's
negligence is the negligence of the
employer for which the latter is liable.
Everything regarding wrecks was left
to the entire dissertation Of Jacks.
Twill cite one more case from N. Y.
Stevens v. Jewett Receiver n. Y. 4
E. R. r. in Is Hun. Death from negli.
gence of shop superintendent. Per.
curia. 'The negligence was that OF
Sup. of repairs &c. He stood in place
Of company itself, and any fault on