Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1896-04-24
TIE BRAKEMAN WINS
Supreme Court Decides the Ampey Case
Against The n. 4 VI. Railroad.
a Lynchsusg Concern Must Pay
notes Endorsed for mn Employee
Whose salary Was Gasnisheed-Ap-
pears era ated. Rcheariug Allowed.


Railroad Company VS.. Ampey. In which
kpdge RELY delivered an elaborate
Yinion.
This was q suit brought In the Corpora
tion Court OF Petersburg against the ap-
pellant by a brakeman who had his hand
80 crushed In coupling cars that 1t had to
be amputated. The case was strongly
contested, but he obtained verdict ana
Judgment for $500 The defendants APP
peaIed. The declaration contained three
counts. and each count was demurred
10. The Court overruled the demurrers,
which was the first assignment Of error.
The main objection was TO the first count
because 1t stated several grounds OF
negligence. But II is not duplicity In
pleading when the matters stated, how
ever multifarious. constitute but one con-
nected proposition or entire point More
over, the objection for duplicity relates tc
matter OF form only and cannot be taken
advantage OF on general demurrer and
special dcmurrers for IL has been abolish
ed. No objection TO second count. once
ton TO third count not true. because the
place, Petersburg. ST which the injury
occurred Is alleged. but not necessary in
a transitory action to set forth the place
at which the act which caused the injury
was done. The demurrers to the declara-
ton were properly oyerruled.
EXCLUSION Or EVIDENCE.
The next assignment OF error was In
regard to the exclusion OF evidence. The
bill of exceptions brings up all the evil
dence, and might be disregarded for that
fault But the three objections made here
10 the Courts refusal to exclude evidence
are untenable. The effect Of the motion
to exclude as 1t was made, was 10 i'm"
pose upon the Court a burden that II was
not called upon TO bear.
The next assignment of error is In re-
gard 10 giving and refusing instructions.
These involved the duty OF the railroad
company to provide safe and suitable
machinery and appliances. and the en-
pioyment OF competent and vigilant SER
wants, etc. IN this case the conductor was
to blame, and his negligence contributed
TO the injury, and the defective and IN
safe condition of the appliances for coup
ling the cars was the primary cause OF
the injury; and by the law OF master
and servant, the master Is liable, and he
cannot relieve himself by delegating his
authority or his duties TO another ser
want. Nor can he shelter himself from
liability for an injury TO one OF his ser
wants behind the negligence of fellow
servant. Petersburg was not terminal
station. and the appellee was under the
direction OF the conductor. Whether
conductor is always a fellow-servant or
brakeman, or not, he was on this occa-
sion. Nor can the railroad company re-
hot he
pellee was fully aware of the risk of
coupling the cars. and yet undertook 1t.
lie did so under the order of the conduc-
tor, who failed to tell the engineer TO
move back lightly. as the appellee had
requested. There was no error in respect
Of the instructions.
In regard TO a new trial because the
verdict was contrary TO law and evil
dence, or because the damages were ex-
cessive. all that was properly overruled,
and the judgment Of the trial court is
affirmed
VICTORY FOR THE BANK.
President Keith delivered the opinion
In Franklin. Clark & Co. We. CONNER
cial Bank, of Lynchburg. The appel
iants, who were dealers in leaf tobacco
In Lynchburg employed S. b. Rucker. at
a salary OF 800 a month. The appellee,
having a judgment against Rucker, sued
out OF the Office OF the Corporation Court
&C LyHchburg a summons. claiming that
by reason OF their Il. ia in the hands OF
the Sergeant they had lien upon the
salary due Rucker, and to become due
prior to the return of the summons-the
May term. 1893
At the May term the appellants averred
that they had paid Rucker 1855 In
cash, and endorsed notes for him tc the
ausount OF s1,l225S, prior to the COM
mencement OF the garnishment The
Court held that the endorsements fur
nished them no defence. and gave Judg-
ment against them for $5l7.69, the amount
OF Fuckers salary, after crediting the
cash paid him.
The bin also alleged that appellants.
had since the judgment been compelled
TO nay the greater part of said notes,
ana expected to be required to pay them
Ali: that Rucker was insolvent, and had
assigned his salary to one OF his cred
itors and they had no means OF pro-
t4cting themselves, and prayed that the
hank be perpetually enjolned from col
1ectine its Judgment against them. The
bank took issue. and dispositions were
taken.
Among the facts were these two: The
proceeds Of the notes endorsed for Rueker
went 10 customers OF the appellants;
and they had voluntarily paid to Gillian.
assignee OF Rucker, 500. The Court
gave a decree against them In favor OF
fae bank, from which they appealed.
but the decree was affirmed. The counsel
for apnellauts relied upon the insolvency
~ Rucker: but this court held that this
case did not come within the Influence
~ the principles enunciated by the au-
thoriiies which they cited.
STAND BY THE REPORT.