a working place within the rule requiring a master to provide a reasonably safe working place.-Marshall v. Dalton Paper Mills (Vt.) 108. § 107. The duty of a master to provide a reasonably safe working place held a continuing one.-Marshall v. Dalton Paper Mills (Vt.) 103. $112. A railroad company is not guilty of negligence in the construction of a switchyard, because at certain points the cars could not clear.-Peters v. Bessemer & L. E. R. Co. (Pa.) 61. § 117. Judgment for plaintiff in an action against an employer for injuries caused by the fall of an elevator held sustained by the evidence.-Cunningham v. Frey (Pa.) 345. $121. Under Act May 2, 1905 (P. L. 355) $121. Under Act May 2, 1905 (P. L. 355) § 11, an employer failing to guard a revolving fan held liable for injuries to an employé.Jones v. American Caramel Co. (Pa.) 613. § 124. In absence of experience indicating danger or of custom of persons engaged in the business, master held not bound to inspect excavation for gas.-State v. Flanigan (Md.) 818. $ 125. A master is charged with notice of a defect in the instrumentalities furnished, where the defect has existed so long that in the exercise of the care required the defect must have been discovered in time to have avoided an accident.-Marshall v. Dalton Paper Mills (Vt.) 108. $ 185. Where injury results from the careless use of proper appliances by a fellow servant, the master is not liable.-Knapp v. Voorhis (N. J.) 440. $ 185. Where the giving of a warning is not incidental to the work of the servant required to give the warning, he is the representative of the master.-Konoski v. Delaware, L. & W. R. Co. (N. J.) 516. § 185. The duty of blowing the whistle or ringing the bell by those in charge of an engine while being run on the ash pit track held an incident in the operation of the engine, and a failure to perform the duty does not impose responsibility on the master.-Konoski v. Delaware, L. & W. R. Co. (N. J.) 516. § 185. Evidence held to show that injury to plaintiff was the result of the negligence of a fellow servant and the contributory negligence of plaintiff.-Vellekoup v. D. Fullerton & Co. (N. J. Sup.) 793. $ 185. The duty of a master to exercise reasonable care to provide a servant a reasonably safe place in which to work cannot be delegated to an employé.-Vaillancourt v. Grand Trunk Ry. Co. of Canada (Vt.) 99. $196. The electrician and engineer of an electric light and power company were co-employés of a lineman for whose negligence the company was not liable.-Shank v. Edison Elec tric Illuminating Co. (Pa.) 210. § 198. The engineer and hostler running an engine on the ash pit track in a railroad yard, and a servant employed to remove the ashes from the pit, held fellow servants.-Konoski v. Delaware, L. & W. R. Co. (N. J.) 516. § 201. Where a master was guilty of negligence proximately causing an injury to a servservant was a contributing proximate cause ant, the fact that the negligence of a fellow was no defense.-Marshall v. Dalton Paper Mills (Vt.) 108. (F) Risks Assumed by Servant. $ 205. A brakeman held entitled to assume that the railroad company will use reasonable care in keeping its tracks in a safe condition. -Vaillancourt v. Grand Trunk Ry. Co. of Canada (Vt.) 99. § 205. A servant does not assume the risk of the master's negligence in the performance of his duty to furnish a safe place to work.Marshall v. Dalton Paper Mills (Vt.) 108. (D) Warning and Instructing Servant. $150. A servant, injured by having his clothing caught by a set screw on a shaft, can recover if he did not know of the use of the screw to fasten a collar on the shaft, and was not in fault for not knowing it.-Deschene v. Burgessing average intelligence, held to assume the risk $218. A servant, 14 years old and possessSulphite Fibre Co. (N. H.) 1050. § 150. A master must instruct his servant as to dangers of which he knows or ought to know, and of which the master knows, or ought to know, the servant has no knowledge.-Ramsey v. Raritan Copper Works (N. J.) 437. $152. The circumstances under which a millwright was killed held such that it was unnecessary to warn him of the danger.--Smyth v. Burgess Sulphite Fibre Co. (N. H.) S70. of injury occasioned by his extending his foot beyond an elevator guard while riding in the elevator.-Cronin v. Columbian Mfg. Co. (N. H.) 180. § 219. A carpenter working in a room of an electric light plant where danger from the wires was obvious held to have assumed the risk.Myers v. Edison Electric Illuminating Co. (Pa.) 223. § 221. Master held not liable under promise to repair if the danger of injury is so great that a reasonably prudent person would not assume the risk.-Comer v. Meyer (N. J.) 497. (G) Contributory Negligence of Servant. $228. It is because a child under 14 is like § 153. A master need not instruct a servant, 14 years old and possessing average intelligence, concerning a danger appreciated by him. -Cronin v. Columbian Mfg. Co. (N. H.) 180. $153. Employer, who did not warn employé of danger to which he was exposed, held liable for resulting injury in the absence of contrib-ly to be imprudent and negligent that his emutory negligence.-Jones v. American Caramel ployment is forbidden by Act May 2, 1905 (P. Co. (Pa.) 13. L. 352) § 2.-Stehle v. Jaeger Automatic Mach. Co. (Pa.) 215. (E) Fellow Servants. $177. Master held not liable for injuries resulting from the negligence of the foreman or other servant.-Robichaud v. Mendell (N. H.) 1049. $235. Evidence held to show that injury to plaintiff was the result of the negligence of a fellow servant and the contributory negligence of plaintiff.-Vellekoup v. D. Fullerton & Co. (N. J. Sup.) 793. $243. A master is not responsible for death | caused him to stumble held for the jury.-Vailof a servant going into a dangerous place in lancourt v. Grand Trunk Ry. Co. of Canada disobedience of instructions.-Lapsley v. Unit- (Vt.) 99. ed Electric Co. of New Jersey (N. J. Sup.) 283. (H) Actions. Opinion evidence, see Evidence, § 471. $264. Declaration for death of servant held not to authorize admission of evidence as to means to enable any one to get out of the trench in which decedent was working.-State v. Flanigan (Md.) 818. § 264. Evidence that employer had promised employé to remedy defect held admissible under declaration.-Comer v. Meyer (N. J.) 497. § 264. In an action for injuries to a brakeman, the question whether an act of an engineer or fireman created the condition causing the injury complained of held immaterial. -Vaillancourt v. Grand Trunk Ry. Co. of Canada (Vt.) 99. § 265. Evidence held not to raise presumption of want of care in master in the selection of appliances.-Knapp v. Voorhis (N. J.) 440. § 267. In a servant's action for injuries by machinery falling upon him while he was waiting in a machinery room, a question to him as to what he was waiting in the room for between the time he saw the machinery break and when he was struck held admissible.-Girard v. Grosvenordale Co. (Conn.) 1126. § 270. In an action for the death of a servant caused by gas collected in the trench where he was working, evidence as to the presence of gas in a trap manhole dug near the trench 10 months later was inadmissible.-State v. Flanigan (Md.) 818. $270. Evidence as to knowledge of effect of gas on human system derived from experience after the accident in question held properly excluded.-State v. Flanigan (Md.) 818. $270. A question to a witness as to his knowledge of means of dispersing gas collected in a pit should have been directed to the time of the accident in question, and not to the time of the trial, 18 months later.-State v. Flanigan (Md.) 818. $270. In an action for injury to an employé, certain evidence by a workman who had left defendant's employ 10 or 11 months before the accident held admissible.-Izydorczyk v. Reading Car Wheel Co. (Pa.) 428. § 270. In a servant's action for injuries owing to the sudden extinguishment of the electric lights in defendant's factory, certain evidence held competent on the question of notice to defendant of the cause of the extinguishment.Rondeau v. Sayles (R. I.) 785. § 270. In an action for injuries to an employé, certain evidence held admissible as against a specific objection.-Marshall v. Dalton Paper Mills (Vt.) 108. § 276. In an action for injuries to an employé in a paper mill in consequence of slipping on the running board of a machine while at work, evidence held to justify a finding that the slipping was caused by an accumulation of grease on the board.-Marshall v. Dalton Paper Mills (Vt.) 108. $279. In an action for injuries to a railroad employé, evidence held to show that they were the result of the negligence of a fellow servant. -Clark v. Pittsburg & L. E. R. Co. (Pa.) 740. $285. Whether the breaking of the kingbolt of a wagon was the proximate cause of injury to plaintiff driver held for the jury.-Comer v. Meyer (N. J.) 497. § 285. In an action for injuries to a railroad brakeman, the question whether a clinker § 286. In a servant's action for injuries by shafting falling upon him which fell because of the breaking of a pulley, whether the employer was negligent held for the jury.-Girard v. Grosvenordale Co. (Conn.) 1126. $286. In an action by a servant for personal injuries, the question whether defendant exercised such care as an ordinarily reasonable and prudent person would have exercised under like circumstances held for the jury.-O'Brien v. J. G. White & Co. (Me.) 721. § 286. Evidence held to present a question for the jury as to negligence in leaving unguarded an opening in the floor of a mill through which an employé fell and was injured.-Genest v. Odell Mfg. Co. (N. H.) 593. § 286. In an action for injury to an employé, evidence held sufficient to present a question for and regulations for plaintiff's safety.-Willette the jury as to defendant's negligence as to rules v. International Paper Co. (N. H.) 870. caused by having his clothing caught by a set § 286. In an action by a servant for injuries screw used to fasten a collar on a shaft, evidence held not to show as a matter of law that defendant was free from fault.-Deschene v. Burgess Sulphite Fibre Co. (N. H.) 1050. $286. Whether proper warning as to the use companion held for the jury.-Izydorczyk v. of apparatus was given to plaintiff and to his Reading Car Wheel Co. (Pa.) 428. $286. In an action by a servant for personal injuries, a nonsuit held justified by the evidence. Quigley v. Standard Steel Car Co. (Pa.) 741. $286. Whether an inspection by a railroad. company of a railroad yard was essential to the exercise of reasonable care in providing a safe place for a brakeman in which to work held for the jury.-Vaillancourt v. Grand Trunk Ry. Co. of Canada (Vt.) 99. $286. In an action for injuries to a railroad brakeman, the question whether if a clinker caused him to stumble, that such clinker renjury.-Vaillancourt v. Grand Trunk Ry. Co. of dered the railroad yard unsafe held for the Canada (Vt.) 99. $286. Whether a master in the exercise of due care would have known of the unsafe conwhich employés stood while operating the madition of the running board of a machine on chine in time to have avoided an accident occasioned by an employé slipping on the board because of an accumulation of grease thereon held for the jury.-Marshall v. Dalton Paper Mills (Vt.) 108. evidence held sufficient to present a question for § 287. In an action for injury to an employé, the jury as to defendant's negligence in the employment of a co-employé whose act caused the injury.-Willette v. International Paper Co. (N. H.) 870. ployé by a defective appliance, held, that a non§ 287. In an action for injuries to an emsuit was error under evidence as to authority of the "boss" to represent the master in stating that the defect had been fixed.-Pankow v. Swift & Co. (N. J.) 669. sustained by shafting falling upon him, wheth$288. In a mill servant's action for injuries er plaintiff knew and assumed the risk in staying in the room held for the jury.-Girard v. Grosvenordale Co. (Conn.) 1126. $288. Whether one ought to have known the slippery condition of a floor on which he fell, and appreciated the risk incident thereto, held a question for the jury on evidence from which fair-minded men might draw different | IV. LIABILITIES FOR INJURIES TO conclusions.-Craig v. Wilkins (N. H.) 872. THIRD PERSONS. § 288. In an action by a servant for injuries caused by having his clothing caught by a set screw used to fasten a collar on a shaft, evidence held not to show as a matter of law that plaintiff assumed the risk of his injury.-Deschene v. Burgess Sulphite Fibre Co. (N. H.) 1050. § 288. Evidence held to show as a concluso of law that the servant did not assume the risk of injury from the absence of certain precautions for his safety.-Ramsey v. Raritan Copper Works (N. J.) 437. § 288. Whether the danger of injury from a defective appliance is so great that a reasonably prudent person would not assume the risk held for the jury.-Comer v. Meyer (N. J.) 497. § 288. In an action for injuries to an employé, the question whether the risk from a defective machine was obvious and whether plaintiff assumed it was for the jury.-Pankow v. Swift & Co. (N. J.) 669. § 288. In an action for injuries to an employé by a defective appliance, held, that a nonsuit was error under evidence as to assumption of risk.--Pankow v. Swift & Co. (N. J.) 669. § 288. Whether an employé apprehended danger to himself and should have been understood by his employer as complaining thereof, and was justified in accepting a promise to repair, held for the jury.-Towler v. New Jersey Adamant Mfg. Co. (N. J. Sup.) 279. § 288. A brakeman held not to assume, as a matter of law, an extraordinary risk of injury arising from the danger of stumbling on a clinker near the track.-Vaillancourt v. Grand Trunk Ry. Co. of Canada (Vt.) 99. § 288. Whether a servant injured while operating a machine assumed the risk held for the jury.-Marshall v. Dalton Paper Mills (Vt.) 108. § 289. In a servant's action for injuries by mill shafting falling upon him by the breaking of a pulley, whether plaintiff was exercising due care when he was injured held for the jury. -Girard v. Grosvenordale Co. (Conn.) 1126. Liability of municipal corporations for torts of officers and employés, see Municipal Corporations, § 751. (A) Acts or Omissions of Servant. $ 301. One to whom the servant of another is temporarily lent or hired has for the time being the responsibilities of a master in so far, and only so far, as he may exercise the authority of a master.-Morris v. Trudo (Vt.) 387. $ 301. In doing an act one cannot be the servant of both a general master and a temporary master, but he may at the same time be of certain acts and the servant of a temporary the servant of his general master in the doing master in doing certain other acts.-Morris v. Trudo (Vt.) 387. § 301. Where the owner of a team hires out the team and a driver to another, and such other has, under the contract, nothing to do with the driving of the team, the relation of master and servant still exists between the owner and driver as regards negligence of the driver in driving, and the doctrine of respondeat superior applies.-Morris v. Trudo (Vt.) 387. 304. Gas company held liable in damages to a workman of a person engaged in improving a street, injured by an explosion of gas.-Diehle v. United Gas Improvement Co. (Pa.) 349. (B) Work of Independent Contractor. Liability of municipality for injuries by independent contractors on public works, see Municipal Corporations, § 751. $322. An employé of an independent contractor injured by coming in contact with an electric wire could not complain of the electric light company for failure to instruct him as to the danger.-Myers v. Edison Electric Illuminating Co. (Pa.) 223. V. INTERFERENCE WITH THE RELATION BY THIRD PERSONS. Restraining boycotts and other combinations, see Injunction, § 101. (A) Civil Liability. § 289. In a mill servant's action for injuries by shafting falling upon him because of the breaking of a pulley, whether plaintiff's negligence or defendant's omission to use prop- Preventing securing employment, see Torts. er means to protect its operatives from peril § 338. The action of labor unions in calling after the dangerous condition of the machinery was discovered proximately caused the in- meetings and formally expelling members rejuries held for the jury.-Girard v. Grosvenor- taken to stand in terrorem as to remaining Grosvenor-fusing to join in a strike held to be action dale Co. (Conn.) 1126. members, in passing on the right to an injunc tion against intimidation of employés pending a strike.-Connett v. United Hatters of North America (N. J. Ch.) 188. § 289. In an action for injuries to a boy, evidence held to sustain a verdict for plaintiff.-Sturtz v. Delaware, L. & W. R. Co. (Pa.) 30. $289. In an action for injuries to a 14 year old servant, whether plaintiff acted with ordinary prudence held for the jury.-Rondeau v. Sayles (R. I.) 785. § 289. A brakeman injured by stumbling on a clinker near the track while attempting to board a moving train in a railroad yard held not, as a matter of law, chargeable with the knowledge of the presence of the clinker.-Vaillancourt v. Grand Trunk Ry. Co. of Canada (Vt.) 99. § 289. Whether a brakeman injured by slipping on a clinker in a railroad yard while attempting to board a moving train was guilty of contributory negligence held for the jury.Vaillancourt v. Grand Trunk Ry. Co. of Canada (Vt.) 99. § 338. Unless bound by contract, employés may, singly or in a body, leave whenever they choose, for any reason, or for none at all, but when they go they have no right to interfere with efforts to fill their places; and, in like manner, an employer may discharge one or all, and, having done so, he cannot interfere in any degree with efforts to obtain employment elsewhere.-Connett v. United Hatters of North America (N. J. Ch.) 188. $338. Certain acts of violence, intimidation, and coercion, chargeable to labor unions, held unlawful.-Connett v. United Hatters of North America (N. J. Ch.) 188. MASTERS IN CHANCERY. See Equity, §§ 401-410. MATERIALITY. $132. Certain plumbing work held not trivyial, but a substantial portion of the plumber's Of alteration of written instrument, see Alter- contract, and was therefore sufficient to start ation of Instruments, § 8. Of evidence, see Evidence, § 147. MATERIALS. anew the time within which a lien claim could be filed.-Federal Trust Co. v. Guigues (N. J. Ch.) 652. $132. The visit of an architect to the premises to take care of the place, see that things Liens on real property for materials furnished, were safe, and to serve notice on the contractor see Mechanics' Liens. MAXIMS. Of equity, see Equity, § 65. MEASURE OF DAMAGES. See Damages, § 100. MECHANICS' LIENS. Liens on money due contractors for public improvements, see Municipal Corporations, § 373. I. NATURE, GROUNDS, AND SUBJECT-MATTER IN GENERAL. Validity of special law, see Statutes, § 85. 13. Land set aside by a second class city under Act April 23, 1903 (P. L. 266), for the erection thereon of a building for educational purposes by a charitable trust, held exempt from a mechanic's lien for labor performed or materials furnished.-Henry Taylor Lumber Co. v. Carnegie Institute (Pa.) 357. II. RIGHT TO LIEN. (D) Persons Entitled in General. § 84. Failure of a carpenter contractor to complete his contract and obtain an architect's certificate held no objection to his right to a lien. -Federal Trust Co. v. Guigues (N. J. Ch.) 652. $93. Facts held not to constitute a sufficient delivery of materials for the construction of a building to constitute a compliance with the materialman's contract so as to entitle him to a lien.-Federal Trust Co. v. Guigues (N. J. Ch.) 652. (E) Subcontractors, and Contractors' Workmen and Materialmen. § 103. It was error to strike a mechanic's lien because of an agreement, not a part of the original contract, between the owner and contractor not to file mechanics' liens, and, such agreement being a matter dehors, the lien is only available as a defense to a scire facias on the lien.-Burger v. S. R. Moss Cigar Co. (Pa.) 219. $103. The signing of an agreement not to file mechanics' liens by the contractor, without the signature of the owner of the building, held a compliance with Act June 4, 1901 (P. L. 438), $15, as re-enacted in Act April 24, 1903 (P. L. 297) 1 (3 Purdon's Dig. p. 2490).-Burger v. S. R. Moss Cigar Co. (Pa.) 219. § 103. Clause in an agreement by building contractors held to prohibit the contractor, subcontractor, or materialmen from filing liens. Burger v. S. R. Moss Cigar Co. (Pa.) 219. III. PROCEEDINGS TO PERFECT. Lien for materials furnished in making public improvement, see Municipal Corporations, 373. $132. An affidavit to the correctness of plaintiff's claim may be made within the 90 days after the completion of the work and labor performed, and the delivery of materials.-Powell v. Carlisle (Del. Super.) 365. to finish the work held sufficient to give validity to his claim of lien.-Federal Trust Co. v. Guigues (N. J. Ch.) 652. § 132. An architect's visit held insufficient to keep his alive.-Federal Trust Co. v. Ch.) 652. to the premises lien for services Guigues (N. J. IV. OPERATION AND EFFECT. (B) Property, Estates, and Rights Affected. $183. Mechanic's lien claims held available and prior to a mortgage only on a mansion house lot on which the work, labor, and services were performed, and not to cover a separate dock lot, not a necessary adjunct for its enjoyment.-Federal Trust Co. v. Guigues (N. J. Ch.) 652. $183. The mechanic's lien law (Laws 1898, p. 546, § 21) held inapplicable to a mansion house lot on which work was performed by mechanic's lien claimants and a water lot separated therefrom by a public highway.-Federal Trust Co. v. Guigues (N. J. Ch.) 652. (C) Priority. Priority of lien over mortgage, see Mortgages, § 151. § 195. Where several mechanic's lien claims for labor and material performed in the construction of a building were all of one character, and there was nothing in the circumstances which would authorize priority of one over the Trust Co. v. Guigues (N. J. Ch.) 652. other, they were all of equal rank.-Federal Trust Co. v. Guigues (N. J. Ch.) 652. VII. ENFORCEMENT. 253. A mechanic's lien, regular on its face, will not be stricken off for matters dehors the lien.-Burger v. S. R. Moss Cigar Co. (Pa.) 219. MEDICAL EXPERTS. Testimony, see Evidence, §§ 553–558. MEDIUM OF PAYMENT. In general, see Payment, § 17. MEETINGS. Of municipal councils, see Municipal Corporations, § $5. Of stockholders after dissolution of corporation, see Corporations, § 617. MEMBERS. Of building and loan associations, see Building and Loan Associations. Of corporations in general, see Corporations, §§ 206, 207. Of firms, see Partnership. Of religious societies, see Religious Societies. Of school boards, see Schools and School Districts, § 63. MEMORANDA. Competency as evidence, see Evidence, § 355. Rights of tenant by curtesy, see Curtesy, § 12. Obtaining money under false pretenses, see (B) Conveyances in General. $55. Deed of mining rights releasing injury to surface land held binding on subsequent grantees of the surface lands.-Kellert v. Rochester & P. Coal & Iron Co. (Pa.) 789. (C) Leases, Licenses, and Contracts. $56. "Lease" for mining purposes and "mining license." distinguished.-Barnsdall v. Bradford Gas Co. (Pa.) 207. § 56. Instrument held a lease conveying an interest in land, and not merely a license to enter and operate for oil or gas.-Barnsdall v. Bradford Gas Co (Pa.) 207. False Pretenses. MONEY LENT. Bill or note given for loan of money, see Bills Interest on loans, see Interest. MONEY PAID. Recovery of payments in general, see Payment, MONEY RECEIVED. § 62. A lessee of a coal mine cannot be charged for use of gangways on the premises for transporting coal from other properties.New York & Pittston Coal Co. v. Hillside Coal Recovery of payments in general, see Payment, & Iron Co. (Pa.) 26. $ 70. Mining lease construed, and royalties payable thereunder determined.-New York & § 81. MONOPOLIES. Pittston Coal Co. v. Hillside Coal & Iron Co. II. TRUSTS AND OTHER COMBINA- $81. Ejectment held maintainable by an oil and gas lessee, though he had not entered into possession, against a third person claiming adversely to lessor.-Barnsdall v. Bradford Gas Co. (Pa.) 207. Contracts in restraint of trade, see Contracts, §§ 116, 117. MORTGAGES. III. OPERATION OF MINES, QUAR- Of personal property in general, see Chattel Mortgages. Priority of mortgage over other claims against estate of decedent, see Executors and Administrators, § 264. I. REQUISITES AND VALIDITY. (A) Nature and Essentials of Conveyances as Security. $ 33. A conditional deed held in effect a deed with a mortgage back.-Crahan v. Town of Chittenden (Vt.) 86. III. CONSTRUCTION AND OPERA TION. (C) Property Mortgaged, and Estates of Parties Therein. § 143. Right of mortgagee to re-enter for Multifariousness in bill in equity, see Equity, breach of condition of deed, in effect a deed with 150. Of parties, see Parties, § 92. MISREPRESENTATION. See False Pretenses; Fraud. mortgage back, held lost by continued interruption and ouster for 15 years.-Crahan v. Town of Chittenden (Vt.) S6. (D) Lien and Priority. § 151. Valid lien claims on a building commenced before the execution of a mortgage on Affecting validity of contract in general, see the property have priority over it.-Federal Contracts, § 94. Trust Co. v. Guigues (N. J. Ch.) 652. |