New Ulm weekly review. [volume] (New Ulm, Minn.) 1878-1892, 1879-09-03
operating it, They are charged with
the masters duty to the servant. They
are employed in distinc ct and iudepend-

ant departments OF service.
Cent. Law j. Aug. 22nd l870-157. sj
ssThe liability Of the master sssays
justice Bigelow in 8 Allen 447'' arises
whether he attempts the duty himself
or intrusts it to an AGENT
Cole j. in the first case cited also
saws: '.The fact that lit is a duty
which must always be discharged,
when the master is u corporation, by
officers and agents, does not relieve the
corporation from liability.
The following extract is inserted
here because it sounds almost like unto
Jacks testimony: ss1he act Of the SER
rant is the act Of the master tultere the
duty Is efned By precise orders, and
svlteTe something is directed TO be. done
and the manner Of doing 1t Is left
,vholly to the discretion, Of the servu,at,
the judgment exercised may be consid-
cred the Judgment of the master and
he must be answerable. 10 Bing. 1856. i
SCOTLAND: See Scotch case Bartons.
hill Colliery cases Macq. 266.
300. Negligence of Collaborateur
Campbell Negligence Sec. 20 & Id.
Brougham's opinion in curiae lib. Eng
LAND. l.. r. 2 Elk. 80. Il KANSAS: In
K p. R. r. v. Little 10Th, X. 18th.
Am Rail. Repts ass. Plff. was u la.
horer employed on a culvert building
for company under one Owens, a fore.
man over the work. @. did not fur
nish anything but could hire and dis
charge men. Through O's neglect the
pl'ff's intestate was killed. Held not
fellow servants and def. liable. Com
pare this with Hotfnagle case, mira.
Iowa. In 43. 400, Pl'ff was thrown
from gravel train by the sudden
movement of train. Delft liable-cit-
ing Deppi v. G. r, |. r. SO Iowa So.
In the case of Peterson v. White
breash Mining Co., manuscript, April
term, 1870 the court, holding boss Or
foreman fellow servant, yet apparent
ly approves the doctrine laid down by
Mr.. Wharton, Negligence Sec. 229, ie,
responsibility Of employer when he
leaves the performance of the work
IN the entire discretion of the employ.
ee. WISCONSIN. In Brabbits V. G. 4
n. w. r. r. 38 Wis. 289. Injury by
negligence of q foreman in shop, per
curia 'sIt is conceded that had the in
jury been caused by negligence Of the
master mechanic instead of the fore
man, the def't would have been liable,
and this because the master mechanic
has general supervision and control of
the whole locomotive department of
the defendant" $50 has Jacks of the
track including the power to employ
the workmen therein and to discharge
them, while the functions of the fore
man are limited and subordinate
s'That the def't would have been Ii
able had the injury resulted from the
negligence of the master mechanic is
fully established by numerous adjudi.
Gated cases, and the concession of
counsel was not lmprOvidently made.
But the reasons assigned why the def
should be held liable for the negligence
of the master mechanic and not for the
negligence of the foreman seems to us
unsound.'' '.--1' 5ag s.sz. ...s. Z. --.sr. =
Each in his sphere. was the agent of
def't, charged with certain duties
which the latter owed to the public
and to it's servants, and on principal it
seems quite iminaterial that one of
them was subordinate to the other
&c. This case WAS considered and de.
terminod on common law principles.
In the recent case of Bessex V. r. r.
supra, the court says: ''In the langu.
age of the court in Smith v. r. r. AZ
Wis. 526 1.-THE negligence or miscon.
duct of the officers or employ whose
duty it is to attend to those matters, &
who pro hac vice, represents the comp.
in the matter, IS the negligence or mis-.
conduct Of the company" citing sc
Wis. 857, lib $50, 400. Also Brabbits
38 Wis. sup. & Wedgewood V. R. r.
40 Id 478. ..;.s 49,. 1850, .-.......... -
ILLINOIS I am not, by any means,
sure can give the accepted constrnc.
ton of the question here for an appar.
ent divirsity of judicial determination
seems to create doubt. - -.
It would seem however from few
of the leading cases to be this: "One
servant can recover from a common
master for the negligence of q fellow
servant unless the latter is in the same
tine Of employment, so says the court
at least in Gregory ads. V. c. b. 4 Q.
R. R. So, Ill. 273, Al Id. lO8. IS ib 492
''where an employed" it is said"had no
choice but to obey orders and was com.
PEELED by those above him in authority
to ascend the car &c., also As lib 1917.
Tho case of McClellans ads v. G. 3. &
Q. r. r. 81, Ill is one where company
was held for acts of assistant super.
intendent whose orders were those of
the company and resulted in death of
pOn1n motor, \ M u n S7i Ey.- go. - = L.
GEORGIA. The case of the G. r. R.
V. Henry So, Geo. 485. The court
holds the negligence of any officer or a.
gent the acts Of the employer.
This may be by virtue of some par.
ticular statute, do not know.
NORTH CAROLINA: In Crouchfield
v. X. r. rs, N. c, 800 Brakeman hurt
by engineer whilst compiling, held, not
fellow servant. This I think agrees
with JudgeC Cooley, who, when careful.
ly read, seems to make distinction be.
tween ''safety of his premises ..'the
suitableness of the tools, implements,
machinery or materials he procures or
employees, and the servants he en-.
cages or makes use of for, whoever is
permitted to exercise the masters
authority in respect to these matters
(conjunctively?) sis charged with the
masters duty and the latter is respons-
IDLE for a want of proper caution on
the part Of the agent or for his own
personal negligence. Essay le.
TENNESSEE. In the case Of Nash. &
Chat. r. r. v. Carroll 6 Heiskell 347
Fireman j. in delivering the opinion of
the court says. s'..Here the parties,
while employed by the same employer
and engaged to do service on the same
road, were not engaged in the same
work nor necessarily by their contract
bound to work together or in connect
ion one with the other. They were at
work at different places, in different
departments, so to speak, Of the var.
led employments incident to the man.
agement Of line Of railway, and as
diverse in their character As can be
conceived. The employer would be
liable not only for acts Of servants