Workman temporarily in service of other than regular employer M'Dougall v. M'Dougall (1911), 48 Scotch L. R. 315; 4 B. W. C. C. 373.

3. Relation between employer, who is also a workman, and other workmen.

When one joint employer takes upon himself the function of a workman the relation of master and servant between him and the employés continues to subsist. (E. L.) Rhoades v. Varney, 91 Maine, 222; 39 Atl. Rep. 552.

4. Workman temporarily in service of other than regular employer.

A person who is in the general employ of one person may be temporarily in the service of another with respect to a particular transaction, so that the relation of master and servant arises between them, even though the general employer may have an interest in the special work. (E. L.) Westover v. Hoover, 129 N. W. Rep. 285; 88 Nebr. 201. Thus where a servant is loaned by his own master to another, who puts him to work, the other owes him the duties due from a master to a servant. (E. L.) Wyman v. Berry, 75 Atl. Rep. 123; 106 Me. 43. In another instance the defendant contracted to place a machine in A's plant, with certain guarantees as to the operation of the machine when installed. An expert was placed in charge of the work, and an employé of A was directed to take instructions from this expert so that he could operate the plant when installed. While the work was in progress a boiler exploded and A's employé was injured. It was held that such person, although directly employed by A, was employed by the defendant to the extent that he could recover from the defendant for his injuries thus received. (E. L.) Wise v. Lillie & Sugar Apparatus Mfg. Co., 113 Pac. R. 403; 84 Kans. 86. The seller of a bank safe and vault bound himself to deliver the same and supply a mechanic to take charge of the work of installation. An expert in the seller's employ took charge

Workman temporarily in service of other than regular employer

of the work of installing the safe and vault and the bank turned over to him its servants and they were under the complete control of the expert in the work, although the bank paid for their services. It was held that the services were, for the time being, the services of the seller and he was liable for injuries negligently inflicted on them in the performance of the work. (E. L.) Wolfe v. Mosler Safe Co., 139 App. Div. 848; 124 Supp. 541. The seller of a stationary engine was installing it and an employé of the buyer voluntarily became an employé of the seller. It was held that such employé had the right to hold the seller to the duty of competent superintendence. (E. L.) Bowie v. Coffin Valve Co., 86 N. E. Rep. 914; 200 Mass. 571. Where the defendant hired the plaintiff and then directed him to work under the control of a contractor engaged in placing machinery in the defendant's mill, the defendant paying the plaintiff and charging his wages to the contractor, whose contract bound him to pay all expenses of putting in the machinery, it was held that the plaintiff could not recover of the defendant as his servant, for injuries received owing to insufficient lighting of the mill. (E. L.) Dallas Mfg. Co. v. Townes, 41 So. Rep. 988; 148 Ala. 146.

A servant who, while in a safe position doing his master's work, was requested by the engineer of an elevator company, which was engaged in an independent employment, attempted to loosen the elevator and while so doing was killed, was held not to be then in the service of his own employer and that his own employer was not liable for damages on account of his death. (E. L.) Longa v. Stanley Hod Elevator Co., 69 N. J. Law, 31; 54 Atl. Rep. 251.

The services of an employé regularly employed by a corporation were loaned to one of the officers and directors thereof to perform temporary services in the private business of such director and officer. While performing such services he was away from his employer's premises and on the premises of such director and officer, and the work was

Joint employers of same workman

done under his direction and supervision. While performing such services the employé was injured. It was held that the injury was not received in the course of the employment within the meaning of § 1465-59 of the Ohio Compensation Act. Re William A. Jones, Claim No. 4173, Ohio Industrial Accident Board, June 4, 1913.

5. Joint employers of same workman.

Where the putting of a heater in a distillery was the joint undertaking of the distillery company and the makers of the heater, it was held that the distillery company was liable to one of its servants who assisted in the work by direction of its foreman, for an injury resulting from the breaking of a defective rope furnished for the work. (E. L.) Old Times Distillery Co. v. Zehnder, 52 S. W. Rep. 1051; 21 Ky. Law Rep. 753. Where a railway company, in consideration of a fixed rental, furnished a brewing company with a locomotive, for the exclusive use of the brewing company, in a yard containing tracks and switches the ties and rails of which were owned by the railway company and the real estate by the brewing company, and the engineer and fireman operating the locomotive were selected by the railway company and paid by the brewing company, it was held that the operation of the yards and locomotive was a joint enterprise of the two companies. (E. L.) Schoen v. Chicago, St. P., M. & O. Ry. Co., 127 N. W. Rep. 433; 112 Minn. 38. A porter on a sleeping car owned jointly by the railroad company and the Pullman company was held to be an employé of the railroad company within the Federal Employers' Liability Act, so that his personal representatives were not precluded from recovery for his death by a release in his contract of employment. (E. L.) Oliver v. Northern Pacific Ry. Co., 196 Fed. R. 432.

For the purpose of having a continuous line, one railroad company, by a traffic arrangement, operated the railroads of two other railroad companies, and the three roads

Teamsters

divided the freight according to mileage. It was held that this was not a partnership or an agency, and that the employés of the operating company were not the employés of the other two companies, and, therefore, had no right of action against them for injury resulting from the negligence of the operating company in the movement of its trains. (E. L.) Williams v. Kansas City, S. & G. Ry. Co., 45 So. Rep. 924; 120 La. 870.

6. Teamsters.

When the plaintiff was employed to drive a team which his employer let to the defendant, at a certain price per day, and the defendant had control of the team, it was held that for this particular employment the plaintiff was the servant of the defendant although remaining the general employé of the owner of the team. (E. L.) Christiansen v. McLellan, 133 Pac. Rep. 434; 000 Wash. 000. Where a municipal corporation owned a water cart and contracted with a Mrs. Dean for a horse and driver, which driver was employed, and who was not under the control of the corporation other than that its inspector directed him what streets or portions of streets to water, it was held in an action by the owner of a carriage, which was injured by the negligent driving of a cart, that the driver of the water cart was the servant of Mrs. Dean and not of the municipal corporation. Jones v. Corporation of Liverpool, 14 Q. B. D. 890. An employer sent two horses and carts with one driver to work for the City of Springfield, in cleaning sweepings from the street. The plaintiff's intestate was also sent as a driver and his duties were to drive one of the horses and a cart to a dump while the other cart was being loaded, so that he was driving one or the other all of the time. The general instructions as to the place and the kind of work to be done were given by the superintendent of the city. But it was the duty of the employé to water the horses when he had a chance and to care for the horses from the time he took them from the

Teamsters

barn until he brought them back again at night. Just before twelve o'clock on the day of the injury the deceased told the man in charge of the street sweepers that he would take one horse and cart and go to dinner and on the way to dinner he would water the horse. The decedent's home was in the direction of the nearest watering trough, but a considerable distance beyond it. Before reaching the watering trough the decedent was fatally injured by the running away of the horse. It was contended that the deceased had no reason to go to his dinner as he carried grain for the horses and it was his duty to feed them during the noon hour. It was held that the retention of con rol included the care of the horses at least to the extent of seeing that they were given water and that during this time the deceased was in the employ of the owner of the horses, and his dependents were therefore entitled to compensation from such owners. It was also held that the accident arose out of and in the course of the employment, as the deceased was on his way to perform his duty in watering the horse at the time of the injury, although he may have had, at the time of the injury, the purpose of doing something else not within the scope of his employment after watering the horse. Pigeon v. Employers' Liability Assurance Corporation, 215 Mass. 000; 102 N. E. Rep. 932.

A person driving his own team, although working for a coal dealer, was held to be an independent contractor and not entitled to compensation. Cheevers v. Fidelity & Deposit Company of Maryland, Mass. Indus. Acc. Bd., Rep. Cas., 1913, p. 365. (Appeal pending to Supreme Judicial Court.) A man who had a carting business was employed to cart stones for a county council. He did the work as and when he pleased, but was not controlled by the council except that their surveyor told him where the stones were to be placed. He did not work continuously, but did other work when he wished. He was paid by the day while he worked. It was held that he was not an employé within the