Изображения страниц

any criminal conduct was charged.-Dow v.

Long (Mass.) 667.

*Statements concerning plaintiff and his at- See "Curtesy" ; "Dower.”
titude toward the election of a candidate for Creation by will, see "Wills," & 5.
superintendent of streets_of a city held not
privileged, but libelous.—Dow v. Long (Mass.) land in question by the owner of the fee, his

*In the absence of oil or gas operations on

grantee, or lessee, the owner of a life estate held
§ 2. Privileged communications, and not entitled to operate gas wells or grant the
malice therein.

right to operate the same.—Richmond Natural
*A person who maliciously charged another Gas Co. v. Davenport (Ind. App.) 525.
with a larceny in the presence of a police officer
held not entitled to rely on the protection of a
privileged communication when sued for slander.

-Robinson v. Van Auken (Mass.) 601.

See “Insurance."
§ 3. Actions.
Evidence in an action for slander held to sup-

port a finding that the declaration was proved.
-Robinson v. Van Auken (Mass.) 601.

Validity of ordinance requiring railroad to
One suing for slander arising from defendant

light crossing, see “Municipal Corporations,"

§ 1.
charging plaintiff with larceny is not bound to
prove all the words set out in the declaration.-
Robinson v. Van Auken (Mass.) 601.

*In an action for slander, the question wheth, See “Adverse Possession.”
er defendant acted in bad faith and with actual
malice in uttering the slanderous words in the Limitations contained in insurance policy, see
presence of a police officer held for the jury.-

“Insurance,” $ 10.
Robinson v. Van Auken (Mass.) 601.

Particular actions or proceedings.
*A declaration for libel, alleging that it was Criminal prosecutions, see "Criminal Law," $ 2.
published "of and concerning the plaintiff,'

For causing death, see "Death," $ 1.
held a sufficient allegation that it applied to To recover or quiet title to lands sold by per-
plaintiff without an allegation of innuendoes.-

sonal representative, see "Executors and Ad-
Dow v. Long (Mass.) 667.

ministrators," $ 4.
*In an action for libel, the innuendo cannot ex- | 8 1. Statutes of limitation.
tend the sense of the cords used beyond their

Burns' Ann. St. 1901, $ 294, subd. 2, re-
natural import.-Dow v. Long (Mass.) 667.

quiring actions on official bonds of county of-

ficers to be brought within five years, held with-

out application to an action to recover from

county auditor sums wrongfully detained by
Administration of fund donated to municipality him from the county.—Zuelly v. Casper (Ind.
for library purposes, see "Municipal Corpora-

App.) 646.
tions," 8 13.

Only those who procure the allowance of an
Gift to municipality, see "Municipal Corpora- injunction against à pending action are equita-
tions," $ 3.

bly estopped from pleading limitations in such
Ratification by municipality of contract made action.— Hunter Niagara Fire Ins. Co.

by library trustees, see "Municipal Corpora- (Ohio) 563.
tions," 84.

§ 2. Computation of period of limita.


*Plea of limitations to amend declaration held
For construction of railroad, see "Railroads," not good if original declaration stated a good
$ 3.

cause of action, though defectively.-Salmon v.
Injuries to licensees, see "Railroads," 8 6. Libby, McNeill & Libby (111.) 573.
Issuance of marriage licenses to divorced per-

*A cause of action stated in an amended
sons, see "Divorce," $ 1.
Liability for injuries to licensees, see "Negli- of limitations had expired held barred, unless

declaration not filed until after the period
$ 1.

the original declaration stated a cause of action
Marriage licenses, see “Marriage.”
Peddlers' licenses, see "Hawkers and Peddlers.” against the defendant sought to be charged by
Regulation of commerce, see “Commerce," § 2. the amended declaration.–Klawiter v. Jones

(IN.) 673.
Theater ticket as license, see “Theaters and

*Amended complaints founded on the same
To practice medicine, see "Physicians and Sur- wrong must be regarded as filed at the date of

the commencement of the action, in determining

the effect of the statute of limitations.--Terre
$1. For occupations and privileges. Haute & I. R. Co. v. Zehner (Ind. Sup.) 169.

*An owner of a stock of goods offered for
sale in a city in the state held under the facts

*In general an amendment of a complaint re-
to be a transient merchant within Act May 15, lates to the commencement of the action, but
1901, p. 466, c. 208 (Burns' Ann. St. 1901. if the amendment sets up a claim or title not
$87231a-7231i), defining the term “transient previously asserted, against which the statutory
merchant,” and requiring such a merchant to period of limitations has run, the statute may
take out a license.-Simoyan v. Rohan (Ind. be successfully invoked.- Fleming v. City of
App.) 176.

Anderson (Ind. App.) 266.

*In an action against a city for personal in-

juries to plaintiff through falling into a street

excavation, defendant held entitled to set up the
See "Mechanics' Liens."

statute of limitations as a defense to an amend-
Credit of on foreclosure, see “Payment," 1. ed complaint.--Fleming v. City of Anderson
Railroad liens, see "Railroads," 4.

(Ind. App.) 266.
* Point annotated. See syllabus.



[ocr errors]

*An injunction against the commencement of $ 5. Actions.
an action does not save the running of limita- *The prosecution of a civil suit maliciously
tions, unless the statute so provides.—Hunter v. and without reasonable or probable cause, etc.,
Niagara Fire Ins. Co. (Ohio) 563.

held to entitle the successful defendant to an

action for damages.—Whitesell v. Study (Ind.
§ 3. Operation and effect of bar by App.) 1010.

An action to recover on policy of fire insur-
ance, when brought in the state on a cause of

action arising in another state, is, by Rev. St. Contract to defend physicians against actions
1905, § 4990, if barred in the state where the

for malpractice as insurance contract, see "In-
cause of action arose, also barred in the state.-
Hunter v. Niagara Fire Ins. Co. (Ohio) 563.

surance,” $ 2.
Rights of foreign corporation engaged in defend-

ing actions for, see "Corporations," § 6.

Of carrier, see "Carriers," 7.

Compelling telegraph company to furnish quo-

tations, see “Telegraphs and Telephones," š 2.

Removal of proceedings, to federal court, see
See "Intoxicating Liquors."

"Removal of Causes," $ 1.
Right of review in proceeding for writ of man-

date, see "Appeal and Error," $ 3.

To compel collection of tax for railroad dona-

tion, see "Railroads," $ 2.
Pendency of other action ground for abatement, To compel correction of assessments, see "Taxa-
see "Abatement and Revival," § 1.

tion," $ 3.

To compel recount of votes, see "Elections," $ 1.

8 1. Nature and grounds in general.
Carriage of, see “Carriers," § 3.

Mandamus would not lie to compel the issu-
ance of a certificate of incorporation in a cero

tain case in which a question of fact was in

doubt (4 Starr & C. Ànn. St. Supp. 1902, c.

32, par. 53).-People v. Rose (Ill.) 42.
See “Building and Loan Associations."

Mandamus will not lie to compel Secretary of

State to issue certificate of incorporation under

a name the use of which may be enjoined by
See "Venue," § 1.

an existing company.- People v. Rose (Ill.) 42.

*Mandamus will not issue except on a show-

ing by relator of a clear legal rigbt to bare

the thing sought by it done and done in the
See “Statutes," $ 2.

manner and by the person sought to be coerced.

-State v. Spinney (Ind. Sup.) 971.

The right of a city to construct railroad cross-

ing and bring action against railroad for cost
Liability of employer for defects, see "Master and penalty, under franchise ordinance and
and Servant," 88 4, 9.

Burns' Ann. St. 1901, 8 5172a, held not an ad-
Warranty on sale of, see “Sales," $ 4.

equate remedy so as to prevent mandamus.-

Vandalia R. Čo. v. State (Ind. Sup.) 980.

§ 2. Subjects and purposes of relief.

*The performance of an Official act which in
See "Malicious Prosecution," $ 3.

its nature is ministerial rather than judicial
Element of homicide, see "Homicide," 8 2. may be coerced by mandamus.—Van Dorn s.

Anderson (111.) 53.
MALICIOUS PROSECUTION. *A county superintendent of schools has no

power to antedate a teacher's certificate, and
See "False Imprisonment."

may be compelled by mandamus to date it cor-
Effect of discharge in bankruptcy on liability rectly.—Van Dorn v. Anderson (Ill.) 53.
for, see "Bankruptcy," § 2.

* Mandamus will not lie to compel the mayor
8 1. Nature and commencement of

of a city to enforce Sunday closing laws and

ordinances against the saloons of such city.-
To sustain an action for malicious prose- People v. Dunne (I11.) 570.
cution, it is immaterial whether the malicious *Mandamus held maintainable to compel a
suit was begun by process of attachment or by road district supervisor to take charge of a high.
summons only.-Whitesell v. Study (Ind. App.) way within his district, as required by Burns'

Ann. St. 1901, $$ 6818, 6828.--Rodenbarger v.
$ 2. Want of probable cause.

State (Ind. Sup.) 398.
Malicious prosecution will not lie unless the *Under Burns' Ann. St. 1901, $ 6028, discre
prosecution was without probable cause.-White- tion of school township trustees in establish-
sell v. Study (Ind. App.) 1010.

ing school districts and building schoolhouses

cannot be reviewed by the courts, but the rene
8 3. Malice.
*Malicious prosecution will not lie unless State v. Black (Ind. Sup.) 882.

dy is by appeal to the county superintendent-
the prosecution was malicious.—Whitesell v.
Study (Ind. App.) 1010.

*Under Burns' Ann. St. 1901, § 1182, mad-

damus lies to compel a county treasurer to pay
$ 4. Termination of prosecution.

over to a town treasurer funds belonging to the
Malicious prosecution will not lie unless the town, to the custody of which the town treasur-
prosecution terminated in an acquittal.-White- er is entitled.--State v. Spinney (Ind. Sup.)
sell v. Study (Ind. App.) 1010.

* Point annotated. See syllabus.

Mandamus will not lie to compel payment

of town funds by a county treasurer to a town
treasurer if the county treasurer has no such See “Husband and Wife.”
funds in his possession.-State v. Spinney (Ind.
Sup.) 971.

*Under Burns' Ann. St. 1901, § 5153, cl. 5,
and section 5172a, the obligation of railroad Applicability of instructions in action for in-
company to comply with franchise ordinance
requiring it to make safe crossings held en Form and allegations of pleading in action for

juries to servant, see “Trial,” $ 7.
forceable by mandamus.- - Vandalia R. Co. v.

injuries to servant, see "Pleading," $ 1.
State (Ind. Sup.) 980.

Harmless error in action for injuries to ser-
§ 3. Jurisdiction, proceedings, and re-

vant, see “Appeal and Error," $ 25.

Liability of carrier for acts of employer, see
An answer to an alternative writ of manda- "Carriers," 8 7.
mus to compel a telegraph company to sell and Objections for purpose of review in action for
deliver to relator the market quotations of a injuries to servant, see "Appeal and Error,"
board of trade held to show that relator desired 8 4.
the quotations for the purpose of conducting a Validity in general of contract between em-
bucket shop.- Western Union Telegraph Co. v. ployer and labor union, see “Contract," $ 1.
State (Ind. Sup.) 100.

$ 1. The relation.
An answer to an alternative writ of manda-

Stevedore, employed to unload coal from
mus held insufficient because not setting out the vessel, who hired his own men, held an inde-
tenor of a contract relied on as a defense, nor pendent contractor.-Sullivan v. New Bedford
declaring its effect on the service required by Gas & Edison Light Co. (Mass.) 1048.
the writ.-Western Union Telegraph Co. v.
State (Ind. Sup.) 100.

$ 2. Services and compensation.
In mandamus to compel railroad company to

A contract of employment construed, and
grade highway crossing, return held to confess held that certain expenses must be deducted
and avoid allegations of the application.-Van- from the gross profits in order to determine the
dalia R. Co. v. State (Ind. Sup.) 980.

net profits forming a basis for the employé's
Judgment in mandamus directing railroad (Ind. App.) 419.

compensation.—Arthur Jordan Co. v. Caylor
company to plank crossing held_not erroneous
as being too specific.--- Vandalia R. Co. v. State *The "net profits” of a business, a percentage
(Ind. Sup.) 980.

of which an employé shall receive for his serv-
of a township to make an appropriation to Co. v. Caylor (Ind. App.) 419.
In mandamus to compel the advisory board ices, is what remains after all legitimate ex-

penses thereof have been paid.--Arthur Jordan
build a schoolhouse, a complaint and alterna-
tive writ failing to show that there were any Willful default in performance of stipulation
funds from which it could be made were de- of contract held to preclude a recovery for sery-
murrable. - Advisory Board of Harrison Tp. v. ices, although the stipulation does not go to the
State (Ind. Sup.) 986.

essence of the contract.-Sipley v. Stickney
Including in the mandatory clause of an al-(Mass.) 226.
ternative writ of mandamus, a command for $ 3. Master's liability for injuries to
greater relief than the relator is entitled to

under his petition and writ renders the same Liability of master for injuries to servant
insufficient. -Advisory Board of Harrison Tp.
v. State (Ind. Sup.) 986.

caused by act of other servant while not act-
ing within scope of his employment, see

post, $ 10.

An order directing a servant to perform cer-
See "Mandamus."

tain work heldnot a particular one within

Burns' Ann. St. 1901, 8 7083, authorizing re-
To lower court on decision on appeal or writ

covery by a servant injured by obedience to
of error, see “Appeal and Error," § 29.

a particular instruction.—McElwaine-Richards

Co. v. Wall (Ind. Sup.) 408.

A railroad company cannot be absolved from

its duty to its servants by suffering a negligent
See "Divorce"; "Husband and Wife."

custom to be established in the conduct of its
Amendment of statute relating to remarriage of business.-Pittsburgh, C., C. & St. L. Ry. Co.
divorced persons, see “Statutes, $ 3.

v. Nicholas (Ind. Sup.) 522.
Effect of invalidity of marriage on competency
of husband or wife as witness, see “Witnes-

A servant, injured by the negligence of his
ses," § 1.

superintendent while performing work under

special direction of such superintendent, held en-
Under Laws 1905, p. 317, amending Hurd's titled to recover under the employer's liability
Rev. St. 1903, c. 89, it is the duty of the county act, though the direction pertained to work he
clerk to inquire whether applicants for a mar- was employed to do.-Clear Creek Stone Co. v.
riage license are incapable of contracting mar. Carmichael (Ind. App.) 320.
riage, under Laws 1905, p. 317, relative to re-
marriage of divorced persons.—Olsen v. People plaintiff to do certain work requiring him to go

Defendant's superintendent having ordered
(11.) 89.

to a place of danger, such superintendent was
*In an action by a wife to annul a marriage charged with knowledge of such danger which
because the husband was a lunatic, held the he could have ascertained by the exercise of
wife was not entitled to counsel fees and alimo- reasonable care.-Clear Creek Stone Co. v. Car-
ay.-Jones v. Brinsmade (N. Y.) 22.

michael (Ind. App.) 320.

*Certain negligence of a machinist charge
MARRIAGE SETTLEMENTS. of repairing a machine held that of a fellow

servant to an apprentice.- Wolf v, New Bed-
See "Husband and Wife,” 8 2.

ford Cordage Co. (Mass.) 222.
* Point annotated. See syllabus.


*The master was not bound to instruct an $ 5. Risks assumed by servant.
apprenticed machinist that if certain steel *The assumption of the ordinary risks of a
needles or teeth on an endless chain broke on brakeman does not include the unexpected neg.
coming in contact with a crowbar the pieces ligence of a conductor while exacting implicit
might fly; such danger being an obvious one. obedience to a specific order.—Pittsburgh, (.. C.
-Wolf v. New Bedford Cordage Co. (Mass.) & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Nicholas (Ind. Sup.) 522.

*A coal miner held not to assume risk of in-
In an action for injuries to a servant by the juries resulting from employer's violation of
fall of certain bales of cotton, evidence held statute relating to coal mines.--Diamond Block
insufficient to sustain a finding of negligence Coal Co. v. Cuthbertson (Ind. Sup.) 1060.
against defendant's foreman.—Cahill v. Boston
& M. R. R. (Mass.) 911.

*The risks of the employment held assumed

by the employé so far as the same could be dis-
At common law and under Rev. Laws, c. covered by using reasonable care to ascertain
106, $ 76, an owner who contracts to have the condition of the appliances he is to use and
work done by independent contractor with the the place in which he is to work.-Evansville
owner's machinery held to owe the same duty Gas & Electric Light Co. v. Raley (Ind. App.)
to employés of the contractor as if they were 548.
his own.-Sullivan v. New Bedford Gas & Edi-

*An employé in assuming the duties of his
son Light Co. (Mass.) 1048.

employment presumptively assumes the risks
$ 4.
Tools, machinery, appliances, diligence on his part.–Evansville Gas & Elec-

thereof discoverable by the exercise of reasonable
and places for work.
A master held not negligent in ordering the tric Light Co. v. Raley (Ind. App.) 548.
performance of certain work by a servant.- A lineman employed by an electric company
McElwaine-Richards Co. v. Wall (Ind. Sup.) to remove wires from old poles held to assume

the risk of injury in consequence of defects in
An electric light company employing an ex: received in consequence thereof.-Evansville Gas

the poles, precluding. a recovery for injuries
perienced lineman to ascend poles for the pur- & Electric Light Co. v. Raley (Ind. App.) 548.
pose of untying the wires preparatory to trans-
ferring them to new poles is not required to in- *A servant assumes only open and obvious
spect the poles and inform the lineman of their risks.—Finnegan v. Samuel Winslow Skate
unsound condition.—Evansville Gas & Electric Mfg. Co. (Mass.) 192.
Light Co. v. Raley (Ind. App.) 548.

One entering a machine shop as an apprentice
*The failure of an employer to comply with held to have assumed the risk of finishing frames
the statute providing that exhaust fans shall being constructed with steel teeth, pieces of
be provided to carry off dust from emery which might fly off when coming forcibly in
wheels is a breach of duty owing to employés. contact with any hard substance. - Wolf v. New
--Muncie Pulp Co. v. Hacker (Ind. App.) 770. Bedford Cordage Co. (Mass.) 222.

* Violation by master of Rev. Laws, c. 104, *A servant directed to work on a platform
$ 27, relative to precautions about elevators, constructed under the directions of his foreman
held evidence of negligence in an action for in-held not bound to examine the same himself in
juries to a servant.-Finnegan v. Samuel Wins- order to determine whether it was safe.- White
low Skate Mfg. Co. (Mass.) 192.

v. William H. Perry Co. (Mass.) 512.
*The extent of the master's duty of inspection *A servant held not entitled to recover for
defined.-Finnegan v. Samuel Winslow Skate injuries owing to her hand having been drawn
Mfg. Co. (Mass.) 192.

into laundry mangle.--Burke v. Davis
*An employer, while under no obligation to

(Mass.) 1039.
provide the most modern machinery and tools *That a servant consented to undertake the
for the use of employés, must furnish those which work reluctantly, and under threat of dismissal,
are reasonably safe and adapted to the work. did not save her from assuming obvious risks.

- Wolf v. New Bedford Cordage Co. (Mass.) —Burke v. Davis (Mass.) 1039.

Servant employed to unload coal from resse!
A crowbar was not a defective nor obsolete held to assume risk of injury from apparatus
tool to use in lifting out the chain on a finishing in use when he was employed. --Sullivan F.
frame in a machine shop.-Wolf v. New Bed- | New Bedford Gas & Edison Light Co. (Mass.)
ford Cordage Co. (Mass.) 222.

The fact that some other appliance than the *A servant assumed the risk of injury inci-
one furnished by a master may, in the opinion dent to the walls of an elevator well being
of mechanical experts, be more suitable for a covered with plaster in place of boards or
certain purpose or safer, does not show that the metal.—McDonald v. Dutton (Mass.) 1015.
appliance in question is not reasonably safe
and adapted to the work, if it appears to have $ 6. Contributory negligence ot
been fit and proper.---Wolf v. New Bedford

Cordage Co. (Mass.) 222.

*A workman injured by the falling of the tim-
ing the machinery and tools in proper repair. Co. v. Wall (Ind. Sup.) 408.
*An employer is under the obligation of keep- ber on which he was working held not in the

exercise of due care.-McElwaine-Richards
Wolf V. New Bedford Cordage Co. (Mass.)

*Coal miner directed to work in certain place
Where a servant was injured by the fall of held to have right to assume that place had been
certain cotton piled in a freighthouse, such Coal Co. v. Cuthbertson (Ind. Sup.) 1060.

made safe by his employer.- Diamond Block
cotton did not constitute a part of the ways,
works, or machinery within the employer's lia- The right of an employé, injured while oper-
bility act.–Cahill v. Boston & M. R. R. (Mass.) | ating an emery wheel, to recover, held not de

feated because the employé stood in front of
*Owner of elevator held not negligent in the wheel.-Muncie Pulp Co. v. Hacker (Ind.
permitting break in wall of elevator well, re-

App.) 770.
sulting in injury to servant.-McDonald v. Dut- In action for injuries to a servant, certain
ton (Mass.) 1035.

facts held not to show that a crowbar used by
* Point annotated. See syllabus.


[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]


the servant was a defective appliance.-Wolf | his contributory negligence.- Diamond Block
v. New Bedford Cordage Co. (Mass.) 222. Coal Co. v. Cuthbertson (Ind. Sup.) 1060.

In an action for injuries to a brakeman, evi- Instruction that coal miner failing to comply
dence examined, and held to show_contributory with Burns' Ann. St. 1901, 8 7472, as to notice
negligence on plaintiff's part.-Flansberg. v. of unsafe condition of mine, assumes the risk
Heywood Bros. & Wakefield Co. (Mass.) 599. of injury, held properly refused.—Diamond
8 7. Pleading in action for injuries.

Block Coal Co. v. Cuthbertson (Ind. Sup.) 1060.
*In an action for injuries to a servant, the The court held not authorized to say as a
specific act or omission, of the master relied matter of law that an employé, injured while

as constituting a breach of duty must be operating an emery wheel, was not injured
alleged in order to constitute a cause of ac- because of the failure to guard the wheel as re-
tion.-Klawiter v. Jones (I11.) 673.

quired by law.-Muncie Pulp Co. v. Hacker
Declaration in an action for injuries to a (Ind. App.) 770.
servant held not to state a cause of action
against one of the defendants.—Klawiter v. provided with an exhaust fan for the purpose

An employé operating an emery wheel not
Jones (III.) 673.

of carrying off dust from the wheel, as ex-
Where a brakeman was injured by being pressly required by statute, cannot be said
thrown from roof of car, it was not necessary as a matter of law to know the danger.-Mun-
for him to allege in his complaint that the .con- cie Pulp Co. v. Hacker (Ind. App.) 770.
ductor knew of his perilous position.—Pitts-
burgh, C., C. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Nicholas (Ind. tion of master's negligence held one for the

In an action for injuries to a servant, ques-
Sup.) 522

jury.-Finnegan v. Samuel Winslow Skate Mfg.
In an action for injury to plaintiff brakeman, Co. (Mass.) 192.
complaint held sufficient to show a duty on the
part of defendant's conductor as to the act In an action for injuries to a servant, wheth-
complained of.—Pittsburgh, C., C. & St. L. Ry. er the defect in question could have been dis-
Co. v. Nicholas (Ind. Sup.) 522.

covered by the master by reasonable inspection
Complaint in an action against a railway Samuel Winslow Skate Mfg. Co. (Mass.) 192.

held a question for the jury.-Finnegan v.
company for injuries to an engineer held not
to state a cause of action.-Southern ky. Co. Whether servant was guilty of contributory
v. Sittasen (Ind. Sup.) 973.

negligence held a question of fact for the jury.
*In action for injuries to coal miner, allega-

-Finnegan v. Samuel Winslow Skate Mfg. Co.
tions of complaint as to knowledge of defect in (Mass.) 192.
mine held not to show assumption of risk.-
Diamond Block Coal Co. v. Cuthbertson (Ind. to have assumed the risk as a matter of law.-

An employé injured while at work held not
Sup.) 1060.

Arnold v. Harrington Cutlery Co. (Mass.) 194.
In action for injuries to a coal miner, motion
to make complaint more definite, by alleging operating an alleged defective machine, evidence

In an action for injuries to a servant while
particular kind of work in which miner was
engaged held properly denied.—Diamond Block held to require submission of defendant's negli-
Coal Co. v. Cuthbertson (Ind. Sup.) 1060.

gence to the jury.-Peterson v. Morgan Spring

Co. (Mass.) 220.
In an action for injuries to a servant, a
complaint held to sufficiently allege that a fly In an action for injuries to a servant caused
wheel that caused plaintiff's injury was a part by the defectiveness of a machine, a request to
of defendant's mill machinery, and that plain-charge that plaintiff assumed the risk in setting
tiff was in defendant's employ and in the dis- up the machine held properly refused.-Peter-
charge of his duty as an employé when injured. son v. Morgan Spring Co. (Mass.) 220.
-Hay v. Bash (Ind. App.) 644.

In an action for injuries to a servant, an in-
In an action for injuries to a servant in a struction that certain language of plaintiff's
sawmill by the bursting of a balance wheel, foreman was susceptible of different interpreta-
plaintiff's complaint held fatally defective for tions held proper.-Peterson v. Morgan Spring
failure to directly aver that the balance wheel Co. (Mass.) 220.
was defective.—Hay v. Bash (Ind. App.) 644.
A complaint in an action for injuries received

In an action for injuries to a servant, whether
by an employé while working at an unguarded the injuries were caused by the master's negli-
emery wheel held to state à cause of action Hargraves Mills (Mass.) 235.

gence held a question for the jury.-Lack v.
under the statute_relating to guarding emery
wheels.-Muncie Pulp Co. v. Hacker (Ind. *In an action for injuries to a servant by the
App.) 770.

collapse of an unspiked platform, whether de.

fendant exercised due care in so constructing
8 8. Evidence in action for injuries.
*An employé suing for personal injury re-

the platform was for the jury.-White v. Wil-
ceived while engaged in the performance of the liam H. Perry Co. (Mass.) 512.
duties of his employment has the burden of *A servant held not to have assumed the risk
showing that the injury was not the result of the arising from the unspiked condition of a plat-
risk assumed.-Evansville Gas & Electric Light form on which he was directed to work, as a
Co. v. Raley (Ind. App.) 548.

matter of law.-White v. William H. Perry Co.
89. — Trial in action for injuries.

(Mass.) 512.
Evidence held sufficient to go to the jury on In an action for death of intestate because of
the questions of contributory negligence and the negligence of the manager of defendant in
assumption of risk.-National Enameling & failing to warn the foreman as to improper use
Stamping Co. v. McCorkle (I11.) 843.

of steel rod for tamping dynamite, held error
An instruction on fellow servants held defec- to direct a verdict for defendant.-O'Brien v.
tive.-National Enameling & Stamping Co. v.

Buffalo Furnace Co. (N. Y.) 161.
McCorkle (Ill.) 813.

Question of assumption of risk in an action
*In action for injuries to a coal miner, evi- for injury to an employé held one for the jury.
dence held to present question for jury as to -O'Brien v. Buffalo Furnace Co. (N. Y.) 161.

* Point annotated. See syllabus.


[ocr errors]
« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »