« 이전계속 »
Concealment of Cause of Action.
II. COMPUTATION OF PERIOD OF LIMITATION OF LIABILITY.
See Carriers, 218; Telegraphs and Tele(A) Accrual of Right of Action or Defense.
phones. Ono 58(6) (Ky.) Under inheritance tax law
LIQUOR SELLING. (Ky. St. 88 4281a-4281t), and especially section See Intoxicating Liquors. 4281d, providing no interest shall be charged if tax be paid within 18 months, which period, under section 4281e, may be extended if estate
LIVE STOCK SANITARY COMMISis involved in litigation, payment of tax can
SION. not be legally enforced and limitation statute does not run against state until such period See Constitutional Law, 62. has expired, unless tax is received by executor, etc., when it must be paid within 30 days,
LOGS AND LOGGING. from which time statute runs.-Ritcher Commonwealth, 201 S. W. 456.
ww3(11) (Tex.Civ.App.) Where landowner (C) Personal Disabilities and Privileges. removal, with provision for extension of time,
conveyed timber, giving grantee 15 years for ww72(1) (Ark.) The stockholder's suit to en- and heirs of such landowner conveyed land force liability of bank officers for negligently save and except timber included in deed of lending money being derivative, since such suit their ancestor, reversion rights in timber did is on behalf of the bank, is not excepted from not pass to grantee, and heirs of original own. the bar of the statute of limitations by minor- er alone are entitled to receive consideration ity of the stockholder.-Magale v. Fomby, 201 for extension of period of removal.-Adams v. S. W. 278.
Fidelity Lumber Co., 201 S. W. 1034.
Timber deed providing for extension of period (F) Ignorance, Mistake, Trust, Fraud, and for removal held to authorize annual renewals
for limited period, and forfeiture of timber Om 100(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Limitations will not rights could not be declared because grantee's run against defense of fraud until fraud is successor, when renewal was asked, tendered discovered, or by use of reasonable diligence only the annual payment.-Id. might have been discovered.--Binder v. Millikin, Where timber deed specified acreage as 2,350 201 S. W. 239.
acres, more or less, annual payment for extenw ! 00(3). (Ky.) Execution in 1914 on judgment sion of time of removal should be computed obtained in 1908, which was not paid, more
on that acreage, though it subsequently dethan five years after actual and constructive veloped that land was greater in area.-Id. notice of judgment debtor's conveyance to wife cm3 (14) (Tex.Civ.App.) Where deed conser: without consideration, and of her possession, ing timber provides a definite time within which was barred by the five-year statute of limita- timber is to be cut and removed, all timber not tions, Ky. St. $8 1907, 2515.-Harris v. Harris, so cut within time limited reverts to grantor 201 S. W. 312.
and those holding under him, notwithstanding
deed does not in terms provide for reversion. IV. OPERATION AND EFFECT OF --Adams v. Fidelity Lumber Co., 201 S. W. BAR BY LIMITATION.
1034. Om 169 (Mo.) Under Rev. St. 1909, $ 1895, Cm8(5) (Tex.Civ.App.) In action for breach of when cause of action originating in Kansas is contract to pay for logs hauled, where evidence barred by statute of limitations of that state,
was conflicting as to which party breached the it is barred in Missouri.-Frizell Grain & Sup- contract, the court erred in peremptorily inply Co. v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 201 Hardwood Co. v. Phillip A. Ryan Lumber Co.,
defendant.--Turner-Cummings S. W. 78.
201 S. W. 431. V. PLEADING, EVIDENCE, TRIAL, AND REVIEW.
LUMBER. w 177(1) (Mo.App.) In an action on a life See Logs and Logging. policy, the defense of limitation is affirmative, and must be pleaded, or will be considered as waived.-Rasch v. Bankers' Life Co. of Des
LUNATICS. Moines, Iowa, 201 S. W. 919.
See Insane Persons. On 180(1) (Ky.) The statute of limitations must be pleaded, and cannot be raised by de
MACHINERY. murrer.-Davidson y. Kentucky Coal Lands Co., 201 S. W. 982.
See Master and Servant, 101-125, 233–247. w 182(4) (Tex.Civ.App.) A first amended abandoned petition being no part of second
MALPRACTICE. amended petition, that the second alleges a different cause of action can be raised only by See Physicians and Surgeons. plea and proof.-Corpus Christi Street & Interurban Ry. Co. v. Kjellberg, 201 S. W. 1032.
MANDAMUS. En 183(2) (Mo.) In action on cause originating in other state, answer, alleging existence of
I. NATURE AND GROUNDS IN GENstatute of limitations of such other state as to
ERAL. such cause of action, and setting it out in am I (Mo.App.) Under the statutes mandamus hæc verba, properly pleads the statute.-Friz- is regarded as a special proceeding: -State ex ell Grain & Supply Co. v. Atchison, T. & S. F. rel. Hentschel v. Cook, 201 S. W. 361. Ry. Co., 201 S. W. 78.
Mandamus, when used to enforce judgment Om 199(2) (Mo.) Action fraud, brought against a municipal or public corporation, is more than five years after exchange of prop- merely a proceeding ancillary to the main suit erties was not barred as a matter of law by and equivalent to an execution upon a judg. Rev. St. 1909, $ 1889, where plaintiff did not ment against an individual.-Id. discover the fraud for two years after
he took cm 2 (Mo.App.) Rev. St. 1909, § 1864, appearpossession.--Laird v. Keithley, 201 S. W. 1138. ing in the Code of Civil Procedure, providing
that article 6 of the Code applies to mandamus, LIMITATION OF INDEBTEDNESS. necessarily implies that other parts of the Code
do not apply, especially in view of sections See Municipal Corporations, m863, 865. 2546-2555, not in the Code, which provide for
mandamus.--State ex rel. Hentschel v. Cook, | from herself entered in favor of deceased prior 201 S. W. 361.
to alleged marriage to plaintiff.-Kinney V.
Tri-State Telephone Co., 201 S. W. 1180. III, JURISDICTION, PROCEEDINGS, AND RELIEF.
MARRIED WOMEN. Om 142 (Mo.App.) Code of Civil Procedure (Rev. St. $ 1751), as to venue, held not applica- See Husband and Wife; Set-Off and Counterble to mandamus.-State ex rel. Hentschel v. claim, w35. Cook, 201 S. W. 361.
Where a mandamus proceeding against the treasurer of a school district was merely a con
MASTER AND SERVANT. tinuation of an original suit for balance due See Accord and Satisfaction, f5; Commerce, upon a contract made with district, and simply ancillary thereto, there could be no change of
8, 27; Evidence, Omw 592; Trial, Om336. venue.-Id.
I. THE RELATION, Circuit court of county in which a contractor's suit for balance due on contract with the school
(B) Statutory Regulation. district was brought, after defendants had ob- Om 16/2. Owing to the great increase of mattained a change of venue to another county, ter heretofore classified to this section, we have would have no right to issue mandamus to en- made a new subdivision, consisting of ww numforce payment of the judgment.-Id.
ber sections 346–420, at the end of this topic, Omw 151(1). (Tex.Civ.App.) Owners of three where the matter in this and future index digests surveys abutting on river bed were necessary will be found. parties to mandamus proceeding against county surveyor to compel him to survey river bed,
(C) Termination and Discharge. as appropriated to public free school fund, that can 41 (6) (Tex.Civ.App.) In action for breach plaintiff might purchase it.-Siddall v. Hudson, of contract of employment, burden of pleading 201 S. W. 1029.
and proving facts showing mitigation of damOn 153 (Mo.App.) The provisions of the law ages by reason of employé's earnings after terauthorizing persons having interest in a mination of contract is upon employer.--- Mindes troversy to be made parties thereto have no ap- Millinery Co. v. Wellborn, 201 Š. W. 1059. plication to proceedings in mandamus.--State ex rel. Hentschel v. Cook, 201 S. W. 361.
III. MASTER'S LIABILITY FOR INDirectors of invalid school district did not oc
JURIES TO SERVANT. cupy such a relation to the state as to entitle (A) Nature and Extent in General. them to represent its interest in money paid to 874/2. Owing to the great increase of matter district as against mandamus to compel its ap- heretofore classified to this section, we have plication on a contractor's judgment against the made a new subdivision, consisting of an numdistrict.-Id.
ber sections 346–420, at the end of this topic, Om 168(4) (Mo.App.) In mandamus against di- where the matter in this and future index directors of school district to enforce payment of gests will be found. a judgment on its contract, evidence for defendants held not to show that money had been (B) Tools, Machinery, Appliances, and sent to district by state auditor under a misan
Places for Work. prehension of facts and a mistake of law, or any om 101, 102(2) (Mo.App.) A sewer contractor misapprehension or mistake of defendants in
is not an insurer of the safety of his employés receiving and retaining it.-State ex rel. Hent- working in the trench.-Gracy v. Walsh, 201 schel v. Cook, 201 S. W. 361.
S. W. 582.
Om 103(1) (Mo.App.) Where plaintiff's son was MANSLAUGHTER.
injured by explosion of dynamite, which he as. See Homicide.
sisted in using for blowing up stumps, duty
resting upon master of furnishing reasonably MARRIAGE.
safe place in which to work was primary one,
which could not be delegated.Gibbs y. Duvall, See Divorce; Husband and Wife.
201 S. W. 605. en 37 (Tex.Civ.App.) Final decree of divorce Cm103(2) (Tenn.) The master may delegate rendered by California court after the hus- to the servant the duty of constructing his own band's death constituted a valid divorce, and, instrumentalities of labor.---Casey-Hedges Co. together with fact of living together by hus- v. Gates, 201 S. W. 760. band who sought divorce and his second wife,
105(1) (Mo.App.) A sewer contractor is limarried after the interlocutory decree, validat- able to an employé for negligence, the test of ed second marriage contract.-Kinney v. Tri- which is ordinary usage of the business.--Gracy State Telephone Co., 201 S. W. 1180.
v. Walsh, 201 S. W. 582. Cms 40(1) (Tex.Civ.App) Every reasonable pre Om 107(5) (Mo.App.) Where contractor's carsumption will be indulged in favor of validity penter on building was injured by giving way of marriage when such question is inquired in- of wall erected by another contractor, rule reto.-Kinney v. Tri-State Telephone Co., 201 lieving master from liability for unsafe place S. W. 1180.
of work, where conditions are constantly shiftCw40(4) (Ky.) That man and woman lived to-ing, did not apply, where only change in congether until the man's death, that they were ditions was that caused by progress of cartreated as husband and wife, and so considered penter's work.-Bidwell v. Grubb, 201 S. W. by their neighbors, and that no one ever dis- 579. puted their being married, raises presumption Where contractor's carpenter on building was of legal marriage. Jackson V. Claypool, 201 injured by giving way of brick wall erected by S. W. 2.
another contractor, rule relieving master from Cw40(10) (Tex.Civ.App.) Fact of prior mar- liability for unsafe place of work, where buildriage is not sufficient to overcome presumption ing is in course of erection and conditions are of legality of second marriage.-Kinney v. Tri-constantly shifting, did not apply, where brickState Telephone Co., 201 S. W. 1180.
work in wall had been laid on Friday, and acCm 40(11) (Tex.Civ.App.) Woman who inter-cident happened following Monday.-Id. vened in wife's suit against deceased husband's Rule relieving master from liability for unemployer for death benefit, claiming a legal safe place of work, where conditions are conmarriage, held to have assumed burden of prov- stantly shifting, does not apply, where change ing there had been no valid decree of divorce in conditions is that caused by directions of
For cases in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key No. Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER
foreman, changing the servant's manner of mon law is left intact, and such defense may work to the manner resulting in accident.-Id. be set up in action for injuries on railroad Cos I 12(3) (Mo.App.) That section hand replac- turntable as against allegations that the handle ing old ties in defendant's railroad track stum- was too short, there was insufficient light, the bled over fence posts scattered along right of current was on in the electric turner, and that way and covered with grass did not show neg.
same was out of order.-Ft. Worth & D. C. Ry. ligence of defendant.-Baker v. Lusk, 201 S. W. Co. v. Miller, 201 S. W. 1019. 357.
C205(5) (Ky.) Where defendant's mine boss Om 125(1) (Mo.App.) Where carpenter
on assured plaintiffs that room in which they building was injured by giving way of brick were loading coal was safe, and plaintiffs were wall erected by another contractor, his em- injured by fall of slate, recovery cannot be deployer was liable, if by reasonable care he nied on ground that by reason of their failure could have discovered dangerous condition of to examine slate to see whether it was safe wall.-Bidwell v. Grubb, 201 S. W. 579.
they assumed risk.--Carter Coal Co. v. Fil
ipeck, 201 S. W. 468. (C) Methods of Work, Rules, and Orders. 206 (Mo.App.) By assumption of risk is C 137(2) (Ky.) Coal company held liable to dents and customs which ordinarily exist in
meant that servant assumes all of those inciboy attending trolley pole of mine motor, in- work in which he is concerned.-Baker v. Lusk, jured when motorman handled motor so as to 201 S. W. 357. cause trolley pole to leave wire and break and injure bov:-Borderland Coal Co. v. Miller, 201 217(1) (Tex.Civ.App.). At common law a S. W. 299.
servant assumes, not only risks ordinariiy in
cident to his employment, but also those aris(D) Warning and Instructing Servant. ing from the negligence of the master, if he mm 150(2) (Tex.Civ.App.) One employed by a necessarily must have known of such negligence
knows or in the proper discharge of his duties city to remove rubbish, etc., from street gut- and of the dangers incident thereto.-Ft. ters cannot recover from the city for injury re
Worth & D. C. Ry. Co. v. Miller, 201 S. W. ceived when in such work he sprained his an
1049. kle by stepping on a three-cornered brick in the gutter, which turned over the city owing risk, it is not necessary that he understand
To subject servant to defense of assumed him no duty of warning.–Dawson v. City of operation of a complicated machine, but only Houston, 201 S. W. 1056.
that he know the dangerous condition thereof, Om 154(1) (Mo.App.) Where plaintiff's son, an or should know it, in the exercise of reasonainexperienced boy, was injured by explosion of ble care.--Id. dynamite used in blowing up stumps, fact that w217(20) (Tex.Civ.App.) A roundhouse help. boy knew that dynamite was powerful explosive er who had worked for over two years about did not excuse failure to warn him, where he engines and a turntable, assumed the risk of did not know that work of attaching caps to injury from conditions which had never changed fuses and priming dynamite was dangerous.-during such time.-Ft. Worth & D. C. Ry. Co. Gibbs v. Duvall, 201 S. W. 605.
v. Miller, 201 S. W. 1019. (E) Fellow Servants.
217(27) (Ky.) A driver of a coal car in a
mine who has passed through an entry 66 times w 168(1) (Tex.Civ.App.). It is the duty of a in 11 days will be held to have known that the railroad to furnish an engineer of at least or- entry was too small for him to alight from the dinary skill to operate a crane on a wrecker. car in such entry, so that he assumed such risk. -Texas & N. 0. R. Co. v. Glass, 201 S. W. --Mahan Jellico Coal Co. v. Bird, 201 S. W. 730.
306. Cu 185(7) (Mo.App.) In action by employé in Cwm 219(1) (Ark.) Servant assumes risks of danrepair department of brick factory for injuries gers which are open and obvious to him.-Arwhile opening a clogged "down spout" carrying Kansas Land & Lumber Co. v. Wilson, 201 S. tailings to a crusher, due to negligence of de- W. 818. fendant's servant in starting the crusher, held Tong-hooker loading logs on was not servant's negligence was that of defendant, so required to look for danger, but assumed risk that there could be recovery under safe place only where danger was so apparent that one rule.--Bright v. St. Louis Vitrified & Fire Brick owing duty to inspect was bound to discover Co., 201 S. W. 641.
it.-Id. 189(3) (Mo.App.) Foreman, engaged in em 219(12) (Mo.App.) A railroad section hand, work of blowing up stumps with dynamite, replacing old with new ties, assumed risk of held vice principal, and not fellow servant of stimbling over fence posts scattered along right employé assisting in work.-Gibbs v. Duvall, of way and concealed by grass and weeds.201 S. W. 605.
Baker v. Lusk, 201 S. W. 357. w 191(1) (Tenn.) Where cores are selected, inspected, and prepared by employés of anoth? | (G) Contributory Negligence of Servant. er department, without supervision except the 228(1) (Tenn.) Where a servant was guilty general supervision over both departments, a of contributory negligence, his recovery is not molder cannot recover for injuries from defe 2. precluded by the federal Employers' Liability tive cores; the negligence being that of fellow | Act.–Cincinnati, N. 0. & T. P. Ry. Co. v. servants.-Casey-Hedges Co. v. Gates, 201 S. Morgan, 201 S. W. 128. W. 760.
231(2) (Tenn.) Where workman, appreOwn 201(1) (Ky.) If injury to a servant is due hensive of danger of falling of smokestack be. to concurring negligence of the master and a ing erected by a third person near his place of fellow servant, the master is liable.--Elkhorn work, continued at work on being told by his Mining Corp. v. Pitts, 201 S. W. 9.
foreman it was safe, his employer was liable
for workman's deata by smokestack's falling.(F) Risks Assumed by Servant. Cash v. Casey-Hedges Co., 201 S. W. 347. w203(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Issue raised by evi-Cam 233(1) Tenn.) A servant in an iron found. dence of employé choosing unsafe way of doing ry injured by defects in cores selected by work, when safe, suitable, and convenient way himself cannot rerover.-Casey-Hedges Co. ¥. is available, is only that of contributory negli-| Gates, 201 S. W. 760. gence, and not of assumption of risk.--Southern Caw? 234(1) (Mo. App.) Where servant operating Pac. Co. v. De la Cruz, 201 S. W. 428.
an equalizing bolt machine in stare factory ww204(2) (Tex.Civ.App.) Under federal Em- knew that if he held his hand in a certain place ployers' Liability Act, when the negligence does it was apt to get mashed if the belt came off, not amount to a violation of the Safety Appli. and he knew the belt wis apt to come off, but ance Acts, the defense of assumed risks at com- ! failed to avoid the danger, be was negligent
- Bathe v. Morehouse Stave & Mfg. Co., 201, 278(18) (Ky.) Evidence held insufficient to S. W. 925.
show negligence of the interstate railway proxem 235(6) (Ky.) Where defendant's mine boss imately causing the injury to the servant enassured plaintiffs that room in which they were gaged in repairing a car.-Siemer v. Chesapeake loading coal was safe, plaintiffs, though they & 0. Ry. Co., 201 S. W. 469. failed to test roof for slate, cannot be deemed ew279(5) (Mo.) In suit for injuries sustained to have chosen dangerous rather than safe by plaintiff when an elevator in which he was place for work.-Carter Coal Co. v. Filipeck, working fell to bottom of shaft, evidence held 201 S. W. 468.
to support finding that defendant, general forem235(15) (Ky.) Though it was customary in man in charge of all elevators, who ordered defendant's mine for loaders to remove slate plaintiff to go upon elevator in question, was from places where they were loading coal, that representative of defendant master.-Hines v. custom could be waived by superior officers in Hammond Packing Co., 201 S. W. 1127. charge of mine, and was waived where mine 279(5) (Mo.App.) In action for death of boss assured plaintiff's who were loading coal plaintiff's son by explosion of dynamite used in that place was entirely safe.--Carter Coal Co. blowing up stumps, evidence held to show that v. Filipeck, 201 S. W. 468.
the foreman, who caused accident while pre238(5) (Ky.) In view of custom to let paring dynamite for use, was engaged in duties trolley pole of mine motor remain in front growing out of his position as foreman, and when motor was going to be run only few feet, not as fellow servant.-Gibbs v. Duvall, 201 S. boy attending trolley pole was not guilty of W. 605. contributory negligence in failing to change it to Cm 284(1), (Mo.App.) Evidence held to present trailing position.-Borderland Coal Co. v. Mil-jury question whether a sewer digger could reler, 201 S. W. 299.
cover for injuries when the trench caved in en 247(4) (Ky.) Though boy on mine motor upon him.-Gracy v. Walsh, 201 S. W. 582. attending trolley pole knew car was being back- ww284(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Peremptory instruced with pole in front of it, and knew pole tion held properly refused if there was any would be more likely to come in contact with evidence that plaintiff was defendant's employé, roof, company was liable for injuries to boy was performing the duties of his employment, when pole hit roof and broke, if accident was and that defendant's negligence proximately caused by rapid and negligent manner in which caused his injuries.-San Antonio, U. & G. R. motorman operated motor.-Borderland Coal Co. v. Dawson, 201 $. W. 247. Co. v. Miller, 201 S. W. 299.
On 285 (1) (Ark.) In action by railroad's em
ployé for injuries when weight of car door sup(H) Actions.
ported by him with pinch bar strained him, C 25034. Owing to the great increase of mat- weight of door, and what weight came down on ter heretofore classified to this section, we have plaintiff, were questions for jury.-Dickinson made a new subdivision, consisting of Om num- v. Brummett, 201 S. W. 812. ber sections 346–420, at the end of this topic, 286(1) (Ark.) In tong-hooker's action for where the matter in this and future index di- injuries while loading logs on cars, evidence gests will be found.
held to present question for the jury whethOn 263 (Tex.Civ. App.) Where defendant de- er the master was negligent.-Arkansas Land nied that plaintiff was in defendant's employ, / & Lumber Co. v. Wilson, 201 S. W. 818. and alleged that he was working for F., an in-286 (19) (Mo.App.) In action for injuries to dependent construction contractor, an allega- sewer digger when trench walls caved in upon tion of supplemental petition that F. was de him, under evidence that only joint clay was fendant's president held relevant.-San Antonio, customarily braced, and conflicting evidence U. & G. R. Co. v. Dawson, 201 S. W. 247. whether the soil which caved in was joint clay, On 265(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Where railroad em- instructions should have submitted the facts as ployé who received injuries while engaged in to usage, and it was error to permit recovery switching gave notice to company to furnish for failure to brace, regardless of the character record showing nature of service in which the of the soil.--Gracy v. Walsh, 201 S. W. 582. cars being switched at time of accident were Crew 286(25) (Ky.) In action for injuries received engaged, company has burden, employé having by railroad bra keman, who was caught by telemade out a prima facie case of injuries occur- phone cable, which had sagged from its fastenring while he was engaged in interstate com- ing, question whether railroad company was merce service, of showing that injuries did not negligent in failing to discover and remedy deso occur. ---Southern Pac. Co. v. Stephens, 201 fect held, under evidence, for jury.-Louisville S. W. 1076.
& N. R. Co. v. Mink. 201 S. W. 16. Cm 276(2) (Ark.) In action against railroad by ww286(32) (Tenn.) Where an engine hostler employé for injuries when weight of
was struck by the dropping of a hood on a door supported by plaintiff with pinch bar smokestack by an inspector of equipment, negstrained him, evidence held to warrant finding ligence was for the jury on the inference that plaintiff was injured in manner claimed.—Dick- the inspector or bis helpers, if exercising due inson v. Brummett, 201 S. W. 812.
care, would have seen the hostler and avoided m276(3) (Tex.Civ.App.) Evidence in serv- the injury.-Cincinnati, N. 0. & T. P. Ry. Co. ant's action for injury from fall of trip bam- v. Morgan, 201 S. W. 128. mer while not being operated, held sufficient to em 286(32) (Tex.Civ.App.) Where injured servraise issue of it being broken or worn.--South- ant's petition charged negligence in ordering ern Pac. Co. v. De la Cruz, 201 S. W. 428.
him to operate locomotive turntable by hand Ono 277 (Tex.Civ.App.) Evidence held sufficient while the electric current was turned on in the to support finding that railway conductor was machine turner, without the servant's knowldefendant's employé and was engaged in the edge, there was an issue of negligence for the performance of the duties required of him by jury.-Ft. Worth & D. C. Ry. Co. v. Miller, defendant when injured.–San Antonio, U. & 201 S. W. 1049. G. R. Co. v. Dawson, 201 S. W. 247.
Ow286(41) (Ark.) Evidence that plaintiff, an en 278(16) (Mo.App.) In action against em- | inexperienced servant, was injured while workployer by carpenter injured by giving way of ing near unguarded cut-off saw in stavemill brick wall, erected by another contractor on without previous instruction or warning, held building on which plaintiff was working, evi- to make defendant employer's negligence a dence held sufficient to show that ordinarily jury question.-Saling v. Chess & Wymond Co. careful inspection by plaintiff's employer would of Arkansas, 201 S. W. 119. hav. revealed defective condition of wall.- 287(5) (Mo.App.) In action by mine helper Bidwell y. Grubb, 201 S. W. 579.
for personal injury in operation of drill driven For cases in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key No. Series & Indexes see same topic and KEY-NUMBER
by compressed air, in view of Rev. St. 1909,, pendent contractor.-Postal Telegraph-Cable 8 5440, abrogating fellow-servant doctrine, held, Co. v. Murrell, 201 S. W. 462. on the evidence, that whether alleged negligence a 323 (Ark.) Contractor, digging a ditch, is of fellow servant was proximate cause of in- not liable for tort of independent contractor, jury was for the jury.--Loveless v. Cunard Min-clearing right of way, who threw logs and brush ing Co., 201 S. W. 375.
on adjoining lands. -Northern Construction Co. ww287(11) (Ky.) Whether master's negligence v. Johnson, 201 S. W. 510. in providing improper insulator or failing to cut the current was a concurring cause of the
(C) Actions, servant's injury held for the jury.-Elkhorn Om 329 (Mo.App.) Complaint in action for inMining Corp. v. Pitts, 201 S. W. 9.
juries in collision held sufficient to allege own288(1) (Ark.) In tong-hooker's action for ership and agency of driver.-Edwards v. Yarinjuries in loading logs, whether he assumed brough, 201 S. W. 972. risk held under evidence for jury.--Arkansas Where plaintiff alleged that defendant perLand & Lumber Co. v. Wilson, 201 S. W. 818. mitted an automobile to be driven by his agent (288(12) (Ark.) Ordinarily question wheth- so as to strike plaintiff, proof of the ownersbip er danger is so obvious that one owing no du- of the automobile was admissible as tending to ty to inspect must have discovered it is for show that defendant did permit such driving, jury.--Arkansas Land & Lumber Co. v. Wil- though it was not specifically alleged that deson, 201 S. W. 818.
fendant owned the automobile.--Id. ww289(10) (Ark.) Evidence that an inexperi- Ow332(1) (Mo.) In an action for injuries to enced servant was injured while working near employé of electric company repairing machinan unguarded cut-off saw in stavemill, held ery of defendant, due to plaintiff's arm being to make his contributory negligence a jury drawn into a clamp used for winding an armaquestion.-Saling v. Chess & Wymond Co. of ture with electric wire, evidence as to defendArkansas, 201 S. W. 119.
ant's negligence held to require submission to injuries to inexperienced boy due to explosion der the evidence, for the jury.-Id. 289 (11) (Mo.App.) In action for personal the jury.-Scherer y. Bryant, 201 S. W. 900.
Question of contributory negligence held uuof dynamite used in blowing up stumps, it was question for jury whether it was possible for 332(3) (Mo.) In an action for injuries due him to see manner in which foreman performed to defendant's engineers negligently operating work of priming dynamite from position where
an engine used in turning an armature whereon he was working.-Gibbs v. Duvall, 201 S. w. plaintiff was engaged in winding electric wire, 605.
whether such engineers were loaned to plainEm 289 (15) (Mo.App.) In action for injuries Bryant, 201 S. W. 900.
tiff's employers held for the jury.-Scherer v. sustained by an employé in repair department of defendant's brick factory while opening a C332(4), (Mo.App.) Where a driver casually clogged pipe carrying tailing to crusher, ques- employed by an automobile liveryman had damtion of contributory negligence held for the aged the machine and repaired it, and was tryjury.-Bright v. St. Louis Vitrified & Fire ing it out when he struck plaintiff's motorcy. Brick Co., 201 S. W. 641.
cle, instruction that if he was using it about em 289 (27) (Ky.) Evidence that defendant em- properly refused.-Edwards v. Yarbrough, 201
his own business plaintiff could not recover was ployer's foreman brought lighted lantern near
S. W. 972. plaintiff servant who was repairing acetylene light, causing explosion, etc., held to make plaintiff's contributory negligence a jury ques.
ACTS. tion.-Bates & Rogers Const. Co. v. Fluharity's Guardian, 201 S. W. 10.
(A) Nature and Grounds of Master's LiaOma 293(2) (Ark.) Instruction that it was the
bility. defendant master's duty to use reasonable care am 372 (Tex.Civ.App.) Under Workmen's to provide reasonably safe appliances, etc., held Compensation Act, compensation may be not erroneous because using word "reasonable" | awarded, although employer's negligence did not instead of "ordinary," or because absolutely proximately cause injury.-General Accident, requiring reasonably safe appliances to be fur- Fire & Life Assur. Corp. v. Evans, 201 S. W. nished.-- Wisconsin & Arkansas Lumber Co. v. 705. Standridge, 201 S. W. 295.
ww373 (Tex.Civ.App.) Where employé loses em 293(14) (ky.) Whether master used due his life in rescuing fellow employé while both care to provide safe appliances to a servant are working in course of their employment, relputting up electric trolley wires in the mine atives may recover workmen's compensation, at held question for jury.-Elkhorn Mining Corp. least where deceased was not positively prov. Pitts, 201 S. W. 9.
hibited by his employer from undertaking resem 293(14) (Mo.App.) In action for injuries cue.--General Accident, Fire & Life Assur. to sewer digger when trench walls caved in up-Corp. v. Evans, 201 S. W. 705. on him, refusal of requested instruction on necessity of removing loose earth before bracing
(B) Compensation. held error.-Gracy v. Walsh, 201 S. W. 582. mm 385(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Workmen's em 296(7) (Ark.) In tong-hooker's action for pensation judgment for certain sum and over injuries by log rolling from pile, instruction | 200 future weekly installment items, for which that, if he was injured due to his negligent fail-execution should issue, if not paid when, due, ure to remove himself to place of safety, jury held not improper.-General Accident, Fire & should find for defendant, was proper, since Life Assur. Corp. y. Evans, 201 S. W. 705. omission therefrom of the word "negligent" | Cm389 (Tex.Civ.App.) Any one who pays for would have amounted to a peremptory instruc-medical services for a servant may recover tion.-Arkansas Land & Lumber Co. v. Wil- from the insurer, under Vernon's Sayles' Ann. son, 201 S. W. 818.
Civ. St. 1914, art. 5246k. -American Indemnity
Co. v. Nelson, 201 S. W. 686.
(C) Proceedings. (B) Work of Independent Contractor.
398 (Tex.Civ.App.) Under Vernon's Sayles'
Ann. Civ. St. 1914, art. 5246k, a servant can316(1) (Ky.) Messenger for telegraph com
not recover for medical aid where the insurer pany who furnished his own bicycle and uni- was not notified of the injury.-American Inform, and took his own routes at his own demnity Co. v. Nelson, 201 S. w. 686. speed, and was paid two cents for each mes-w405(1) (Tex.Civ.App.) Evidence regarding sage delivered, was servant, and not an inde- I warnings and protests by employer's super