The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1898-10-11

upon them creates also the legal obli-
CATION. While there are various re-
spectacle authorities disagreeing with
this opinion, even this one being rem
dered by a divided court. Its reasoning
Is strong and appears to he just SO FAR
as railroad and other quasi-public cor
porations are concerned. None OF the
authorities, however. We believe. 60 TO
the extent of holding that any other
person acting as agent or officer OF a
corporation than the superintendent or
the general manager may bind the com
pany by such a contract without special
authority for that purpose.
y "A mining corporation Is In many re-
spects n very different individual from
a railroad corporation. IL Is r the
business Of n mining company is more
or less hazardous: so Is the business OF
a corporation organized for the cree
ton of buildings and other improve
ments of like character. So is the busi-
ness Of private individuals N CO.
partnerships engaged I'm like enter
prises. II will not be insisted for one
momen that n private individual en-
gagged in an enterprise involving more
or less hazard Is bound To furnish med
ical attendance for al employe who Is
injured in the course Of his employment
NllIlDuN bIdillt WI ~ loA - -
ployer. a mining corporation Is no
more than n private artificial person.
and therefore its duties and liabilities
in this regard can no more be measured
by the duties and liabilities of a rail-
road corporation than can the duties
of a mere private person or o-par
nership. II we admit for a m
that this duty rests upon private indi-
viduals, hen every person who owns
a prospect hole where he employs a
number of miners would be liable for
any contract his shift boss or foreman
might made for medical attendance
upon any employe who might Happen
to be injured in the progress of their
work. This. too. would be without ref
erence to the question as to whether
the employe was to bla me for his own
injury or not. In the case now under
consideration the facts proven are
these: The Gold Coin Mining & Milling
company in January. 1895, was engaged
i'm mining operations upon its prop
erty in Deer Lodge county. The fore
man Of the mine. Mr.. Beaton, ana Two
other employees. Larson and Erickson,
were injured in an explosion. There Is
no line of proof showing how the ex-
plosion occurred. whether by some care
less act of these men or some one OF
them or whether Ii was purely acclden-
tai. There is no line OF proof W
that the through its agents,
was in any way to blame for the acci-
dent. So far as the proof shows, the
company Is not liable to those men for
damages for any negligent act on its
part. These men could not recover
from the company themselves the
moneys expended to secure medical at
endan They were brought to the
CITY of Anaconda and placed in the
hospital. The proof does not show by
DIR. Spelman was summoned TO
- -. Axr ~ nf tho hnCnltAl an-
thorities. DIR. Mckenzie was called.
but the proof does not show by whom.
DIR. Mckenzie had no contract with
any one at that time. DIR. Spelman tes-
titles that he was told by Mr.. Beaton'
the mine foreman. that the company
pay him for any services he
might render. Thereupon he and DIR.
rendered such services as
the men required at that time. on the
next day DIR. Spelman received a tele-
gram from l.. L. Loomis, who Is admit
ted in the proof to have been at that
time the secretary and general mana
ger of the company. of the following
urport Spare no expense in giving
Bcaton best possible nursing and at
tention: also III Erickson and Larson
need surgical and hospital treatment, j
will pay all expenses This was signed
l.. l.. Lomis. A few days after this
Loomis arrived in Anaconda N told
1pF. MthtnLlt anu II. SBtliilai NidN |
the would pay their bills.
Services were rendered by the plaintiff
and DIR. Mckenzie until the men were
able To leave the hospital. a period of
some two months. In the meantime
and before the arrival Of Loomis. after
consultation with Foreman Beaten. DIR.
Grigg Of Butte was called and one OF
MIR. Beaton's eyes was enocleated. DIR.
Grigg afterward presented his bill to
the and II was paid. DR..
Spelman presented his bill to the COM
pany and IL was not paid. DR.. Me-
KenZie presented no bill to the COM
pany. and so far as the proof shows the
first information the company had Of
his bill was the beginning of his suit.
The employment I'm this case. II made
at all, was contracted for by Beaton,
else the contract rests upon the con
versations had between DR.. Spelman
and Or. Mckenzie and Mr.. LOOMS on
his arrival I'm Anaconda several days
after the employment had been en-
tered upon.
1t cannot be insisted that a mine
foreman can bind the company for med
zeal services to an injured employe at
his request. This Is entirely without
the scope If his authority. So far as
we can judicially know his authority.
it extends only to the employment and
discharge OF men under the direction of