Great Falls weekly tribune., 1896-04-17
FELLOW SERVANT" STATUTE
The Supreme Court of Montana De-
clares That the Law Is
Unconstitutional.
Case of Criswell Versus the Montana
Central Railway Co. Reversed
and Remanded.

On rehearing, the eupreme court has
reversed the decision Of the Eighth dis"
trict court, in and for Cascade county,
in the case of Charles G.. Criswell vs,
The Montana Central Railway Company
and, by this decision, declares unconsti-
tutional statute which provided greater
protection for employees of railroad
company than is provided by any other
state.
The plaintiff was injured in an acci-
dent that occurred near the Great Falls
station, on the West eide, the accident
being caused by the negligence of the
engineer. He instituted suit and OBJ
tanned a Judgment against the company
for $1,000 damages. The railroad com
pany appealed and the supreme court
affirmed the judgment. Subsequently
| the case was allowed to come up again
| for rehearing, the court having decided,
by the opinion of the chief justice, that
section G9I of the complied statutes,
| 1887, fifth division, modified the con
mon law rule IN regard to the liability
of railroad companies to their servants
for the negligence of servants of a higher
grade. This point was not urged 90 the
original hearing, but it became vital in
consequence Of the views of the court on
the question, What effect did section
II Of article 10 OF the constitution Of the
state have upon section G91 Of the com
piled statutes?"
The section Of the compiled statutes
| Of 1857 rafnrrafi to rao1c frlIg,rs.
THAT in every case the liability OF
the corporation to a servant or eUpIoye,
acting under the orders of his superior,
tanned by default or wrongful acI Uf his
superior, or to an employe not appointed
or controlled by him, as if such servant
or employe were passenger"
Section IL, article 10, Of the constitu-
ton, provides that mo company or cor
poration formed under the laws Of any
other county, state or territory, shall
have, or be allowed to exercise, or enjoy
within this state any greater rights OF
privileges than those possessed or en-.
joyed by corporations of the same OF
similar character created under the laws
Of this state"
The supreme court holds that the
statute was inconsistent with the con-
stitution, as greater burden was put
upon the appellant ia domestic corpora
tion) than upon foreign company of q
similar character, and was therefore an
nulled by the adoption of the constitu
ton. The judgment of the supreme
court affirming the judgment of the dis
trict court is set aside and reversed; the
judgment of the lower court is reversed
and the cause is remanded with direc
tions to grant new trial The opinion
was written by Associate Justice Hunt
Largent e. Huntoon were attorneys
for plaintiff and respondent, and A. j
Shores was attorney for defendant anC
appellant.
The decision probably virtually ends
the case, as the plaintiff cannot hold the
defendant liable, and the plaintiff vii
either dismiss the case or the defendan
will move for non suit.
At the trial of the case Judge Bentor
stated that, in his opinion, the statutt
was unconstitutional, but said that, de
string to give the supreme court an op
portunity to pass or the question, h'
would charge the jury in the language o
the statute, which he did.
The statute thus declared null apt
void was adopted by the territorial legis
lature in 1878.