Case Name: McCORMICK et al. v. ALFRED S. AMER CO., Limited
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1911-10-16
Citations: 131 La. 220
Docket Number: No. 19,001
Parties: McCORMICK et al. v. ALFRED S. AMER CO., Limited.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Reports
Volume: 131
Pages: 219–227

Head Matter:
(59 South. 127.)
No. 19,001.
McCORMICK et al. v. ALFRED S. AMER CO., Limited.
(Oct. 16, 1911.
On the Merits, May 6, 1912.
Rehearing Denied June 28, 1912.)
(Syllabus by the Court.)
On Motion to Dismiss.
1.Arpeal and Error (§ 361*) — Motion of Appeal — Sufficiency .
Where 'a motion of appeal reads “James Legendre, Edward Rightor, Denegre and Blair and Leovy, counsel for defendant, and aver that the judgment rendered is contrary to the law and the evidence, and that the mover desires to appeal,” it is held that the word “mover,” being in the singular number, cannot refer to several attorneys, and must therefore refer to the defendant.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. §§ 1941-1959; Dec. Dig. § 361.*]
On the Merits.
2.Master and Servant (§ 235*) — Injury to-Servant — Knowledge of Defects.
A mechanic hired to keep a hotel -elevator in good running order has no standing to complain of minor defects in the machinery which it was his duty to discover and repair.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Master and Servant, Cent. Dig. §§ 710-722; Dec. Dig. § 235.*]
3. Master and Servant (§ 238*) — Injury to Servant — Assumption of Risk.
A mechanic engaged in the work of greasing the slides of a hotel elevator unnecessarily assumed an unsafe position on the cross-head of the car, and was mortally injured by reason of being jammed between the top of the car and the ceiling of the shaft. Held, that the employer was not responsible in damages.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Master and Servant, Cent. Dig. §§ 681, 743-748; Dec. Dig. § 23S.*]
4. Master and Servant (§ 177*) — Injury to Servant — Negligence of Fellow Servant.
Wh-ere a mechanic hired to keep a hotel elevator in good running order was assisted by an elevator boy, who was subject to his orders, for the purposes of the work in hand, held, that the mechanic was a vice principal, or at least a fellow servant, and could not recover-damages from his employer for an injury occasioned by the contributory negligence of his. assistant.
[Ed. Note. — For other eases, see Master and Servant, Cent. Dig. §§ 307, 352, 353; Dec. Dig. § 177.*]
Appeal from Civil District Court, Parish of Orleans; J. Porter Parker, Judge.
Action by Johanna McCormick and others against the Alfred S. Amer Company, Limited. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendant appeals.
Reversed, and suit dismissed.
Edward Rightor, James Legendre, Denegre, Blair & Denegre, and Victor Leovy, for appellant. Armand Romain, for appellees.

Opinion:
On Motion to Dismiss.
BREAUX, C. J.
Plaintiffs urge as ground for dismissing the appeal that the motion of appellant for an appeal was made by and on behalf of the counsel of defendant in their own behalf, and not by defendant.
The motion for the appeal reads as follows:
"James Legendre, Edward Rightor, DenegreBlair and Leovy, counsel for defendant, aver that the judgment rendered is contrary to the law and the evidence, and that the 'mover' desires to appeal."
Evidently, the word "mover," used in the motion for an appeal, refers to one person and not to several.
That one person could only be the defendant, appellant, and it cannot be that these attorneys in using the word "mover" intended to refer to themselves.
The word indicates that they meant the defendant. It could refer to no one else.
A somewhat similar question was raised in Ansley v. Stuart, 123 La. 334, 48 South. 953; also, in Alba v. Provident Society, 118 La. 1030, 43 South. 663.
The court held in those cases that the word "mover" did not refer to the several attorneys employed in the case, but that it related to the appellant.
In Voelkel v. Aurich, 118 La. 526, 43 South. 151, there were two attorneys. The word used was in the plural. The court held that it must have meant the attorneys, and not the appellant.
We have seen that the present case is different, and leads to an entirely different conclusion.
Looking to the substance of things, and not to form, we do not think that we should dismiss the appeal.
The attorneys in this case have no interest whatever in the appeal. Nothing indicates that they were referring to themselves as appellants.
From all points of view, it is very evident that the word used, to wit, "mover," meant the defendant, and not the attorneys, who would have been referred to as movers.
For reasons stated, it is ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the motion filed to dismiss the appeal is overruled.