ployer for the purposes of the same business, however different in detail those purposes may be, are fellow

Co. (Ind. App.), 32 N. E. Rep. 579; Roux v. Blodgett & Davis Lbr. Co., 94 Mich. 607; 54 N. W. Rep. 492; Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. Baugh, 149 U. S. 368; 13 S. Ct. Rep. 914; Hughes v. Fagin, 46 Mo. App. 37; Coal Creek M. Co. v. Davis, 90 Tenn. 711; 18 S. W. Rep. 387; Snyder v. Viola Mining & S. Co., 2 Idaho, 771; 26 Pac. Rep. 127; Bergstron v. Staples, 82 Mich. 654; 46 N. W. Rep. 1035; Ocean Steamship Co. v. Cheyney, 86 Ga. 278; 12 S. E. Rep. 351; Fraser v. Red River Lbr. Co., 45 Minn. 235; 47 N. W. Rep. 785; Butler v. Townsend, 126 N. Y. 105; 26 N. E. Rep. 1017; Gumsley v. Hankins, 46 Fed. Rep. 400; Kehoe v. Allen, 92 Mich. 464; 52 N. W. Rep. 740; Thyng v. Fitchburg R. Co., 156 Mass. 13; 30 N. E. Rep. 169; Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. Andrews, 50 Fed. Rep. 728; 1 C. C. A. Rep. 636; Cincinnati, etc., R. Co. v. Mealer, 50 Fed. Rep. 725; 1 C. C. A. Rep. 633; Dwyer v. Hickler, 16 N. Y. S. Rep. 814; McDonald v. New York, etc., R. Co., 63 Hun, 587; 18 N. Y. S. Rep. 609; Spencer v. Ohio & M. R. Co., 130 Ind. 181; 29 N. E. Rep. 915; International & G. N. R. Co. v. Ryan, 82 Tex. 565; 18 S. W. Rep. 219; Corona v. Galveston, etc., R. Co. (Tex.), 17 S. W. Rep. 384; Parrish v. Pensacola & A. R. Co., 28 Fla. 251; 9 So. Rep. 696; Lasky v. Canadian P. R. Co., 83 Me. 461; 22 At. Rep. 367; Miller v. Southern P. R. Co., 20 Oreg. 285; 26 Pac. Rep. 70; Bier v. Jeffersonville M. & I. R. Co., 138 Ind. 78; 31 N. E. Rep. 471; Warmington v. Atchison, etc., R. Co., 46 Mo. App. 159; Kerlin v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 50 Fed. Rep. 185; Mele v. Delaware & H. C. Co., 14 N. Y. S. Rep. 630; Knathla v. Oregon, etc., R. Co., 21 Oreg. 136; 27 Pac. Rep. 91; Ohio & M. R. Co. v. Robb, 36 Ill. App. 627; McKay v. Northern P. R. Co., 42 Fed. Rep. 288; Abend v. Terre Haute & I. R. Co., 11 Ill. 202; Kilroy v. Delaware & H. C. Co., 121 N. Y. 22; 24 N. E. Rep. 192; Adams v. Iron Cliffs Co., 78 Mich. 271; 44 N. W. Rep. 270; Hoar v. Merritt, 62 Mich. 386; 29 N. W. Rep. 15; Julbec S. S. Co. v. Merchant, 133 U. S. 375; 10 S. Ct. Rep. 397; Bergquist v. City of Minneapolis, 42 Minn. 471; 44 N. W. Rep. 530; Niantic C. & M. Co. v. Leonhard, 25 Ill. App. 95; affirmed 126 Ill. 216; 19 N. E. Rep. 294; St. Louis, A. & T. R. Co. v. Welch, 72 Tex. 298; 10 S. W. Rep. 529; Fagundes v. Central P. R. Co., 79 Cal. 97; 21 Pac. Rep. 437; Carr v. North River Const. Co., 48 Hun, 266; Stringham v. Stewart, 11 N. Y. 188; 18 N. E. Rep. 870; Blazinski v. Perkins, 77 Wis. 9; 45 N. W. Rep. 547; McCoy v. Empire Warehouse Co., 10 N. Y. S. Rep. 99; Hankins v. New York, etc., R. Co., 55 Hun, 51; 8 N. Y. S. Rep. 272; McMasters v. Illinois Central R. Co., 65 Miss. 264; 4 So. Rep. 59; Byrnes v. New York, etc., R. Co., 113 N. Y. 251; 21 N. E. Rep. 50; Evans v. Lippincott, 47 N. J. L. 192; 34 Am. Rep. 148.

In the following cases it was held, that the master was by the rule excepted from liability. Jacques v. Great Falls Mfg. Co., (N. H.) 22 At. Rep. 552; Evans v. Carbon Hill Coal Co., 47 Fed. Rep. 437; Marshall v. Herman, 47 Minn. 537; 50 N. W. Rep. 611; Sadowski v. Michigan Car

servants in a common employment within the meaning of this rule: for example, a carpenter doing work on the roof of an engine-shed and porters moving an engine on a turntable (j). "Where there is one common general object, in attaining which a servant is exposed to risk, he is not entitled to sue the master if he is injured by the negligence of another servant whilst engaged in furthering the same object" (k).

Relative rank of the servants immaterial. It makes no difference if the servant by whose negligence another is See last note. (k) Thesiger L. J., Charles v. Taylor (1878), 3 C. P. Div. 492, 498. Co., 84 Mich. 100; 47 N. W. Rep. 498; Daniel v. Chesapeake & O. R. Co., 36 W. Va. 397; 15 S. E. Rep. 162; Noonan v. New York etc. R. Co., 131 N. York. 594; 62 Hun. 618; 16 N. Y. S. Rep. 678; 30 N. E. Rep. 67; Gross v. Pennsylvania P. & B. R. Co., 62 Hun. 619; 16 N. Y. S. Rep. 616; Miller v. Missouri P. R. Co., 109 Mo. 350; 19 S. W. Rep. 58; Columbus & T. R. Co. v. O'Brien, 4 Ohio Cir. Ct. Rep. 515; North Chicago R. M. Co. v. Johnson, 114 Ill. 57; 29 N. E. Rep. 186; Dixon v. Chicago & A. R. Co., 109 Mo. 413; 19 S. W. Rep. 413; Tudor Iron Works v. Weber, 31 Ill. App. 306; affirmed 129 Ill. 535; 21 N. E. Rep. 1078; Ohio & M. R. Co. . Pearey, 128 Ind. 197; 27 N. E. Rep. 479; Pool v. Southern P. R. Co., 7 Utah 303; 26 Pac. Rep. 654; Webb v. Denver & R. G. R. Co., 7 Utah, 363; 26 Pac. Rep. 981; St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v. Weaver, 35 Kan. 412; 11 Pac. Rep. 408; Hobson v. New Mexico & A. R. Co., (Ariz.) 11 Pac. Rep. 545; Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Sheets, (Ky.) 13 S. W. Rep. 248; Morton v. Detroit etc. R. Co., 81 Mich 423; 46 N. W. Rep. 111; Daniels v. Union P. R. Co., 6 Utah 357; 23 Pac. Rep. 762; Cincinnati, H. & D. R. Co. v. McMullen, 117 Ind. 439; 20 N. E. Rep. 287, Ragsdale v. Northern P. R. Co., 42 Fed. Rep. 383; Sanford v. Standard Oil Co., 118 N. Y. 571; 24 N. E. Rep. 313; Evans v. American Iron & Tube Co., 42 Fed. Rep. 519; Harvard v. Delaware & H. C. Co., 40 Fed. Rep. 195; Sullivan & Missouri P. R. Co., 97 Mo. 113; 10 S. W. Rep. 852; Northern P. R. Co. v. O'Brien, 1 Wash. St. 599; 21 Pac. Rep. 32; Pike v. Chicago & A. R. Co., 41 Fed. Rep. 95; Central Trust Co. v. Wabash, St. L. & P. R. Co., 34 Fed. Rep. 616; Hall v. Galveston, etc. R. Co., 39 Fed. Rep. 18; Sullivan v. Tioga R. Co., 112 N. Y. 643; 20 N. E. Rep. 569; Kelley v. Erie Tel. & T. Co., 34 Minn. 321; James v. Emmet Minning Co., 55 Mich. 335.

Relative rank of the servants immaterial. This general proposition is sustained by numerous authorities, vide Brick v. Rochester, etc., R. Co., 98 N. Y. 511; 21 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 605; Zeigler v. Day, 123 Mass.

injured is a foreman, manager, or other superior in the same employment, whose orders the other was by the terms of his service bound to obey. The foreman o man

152; Richmond & D. R. Co. v. Jones, 92 Ala. 218; 9 So. Rep. 276; McGinty v. Athol Reservoir Co., 155 Mass. 183; 29 N. E. Rep. 510; O'Brien v. American Dredging Co., 53 N. J. L. 291; 21 At. Rep. 324; Dube v. City of Luviston, 83 Me. 211; 22 At. Rep. 112; Jenkins v. Mahopac Iron Ore Co., 10 N. Y. S. Rep. 484; Sayward v. Carlson, 1 Wash St. 29; 23 Pac. Rep. 830; Kenny v. Cunard S. S. Co., 55 N. Y. Superior Ct. 558; Kinney v. Corbin, 132 Pa. St. 341; 19 At. Rep. 141; Lagrone v. Mobile & O. R. Co., 67 Miss. 592; 7 So. Rep. 432; Duffy v. Oliver, 131 Pa. St. 203; 18 At. Rep. 872; Yates v. McCulloch Iron Co., 69 Md. 370; 16 At. Rep. 280; Rogers L. & M. Works v. Hand, 50 N. J. L. 464; 14 At. Rep. 766; Galveston etc. R. Co. v. Farmer, 73 Tex. 637; 11 S. W. Rep. 156; Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Martin, 87 Tenn. 398; 10 S. W. Rep. 772; McBride v. Union P. R. Co., 3 Wyo. 247; 21 Pac. Rep. 687; Wilson v. Dumreath etc. Co., 77 Ia. 429; 42 N. W. Rep. 360; Conley v. Portland, 78 Me. 217; Loughlin v. State, 105 N. Y. 159; Willis v. Oregon R. & N. Co. 11 Oreg. 257; Reese v. Biddle, 112 Pa. St. 72; Waddell, v. Simonson, 112 Pa. St. 567; Kirk v. Atlanta & C. A. R. Co., 94 N. C. 625; 55 Am. Rep. 621; Chicago & E. I. R. v. Geary, 110 Ill. 383; Lincoln Coal M. Co. v. McNally, 15 Ill. App. 181; Matthews v. Case, 61 Wis. 49; 50 Am. Rep. 151; Peschel v. Chicago etc. R. Co., 62 Wis. 338; Fraker v. St. Paul etc. R. Co., 32 Minn, 54; Doughty v. Penobscot Log Driving Co., 76 Md. 143; Scott v. Sweeny, 34 Hun, 292; Heine v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co., 58 Wis. 525; Olson v. Clyde, 32 Hun, 425; Yager v. Atlantic etc. R. Co., 44 Hughes, 192; Flynn v. Salem, 134 Mass. 351; Keystone Bridge Co. v. Newberry, 96 Pa. St. 246; 42 Am. Rep. 543; Thompson v. Chicago etc. R. Co., 18 Fed. Rep. 239; Peterson v. Whitebreast C. & M. Co., 50 Ia. 673; Lehigh Valley Co. v. Jones, 86 Pa. St. 432; Hofnagle v. New York, C. & H. R. R. Co., 55 N. Y. 608; Shank v. Northern etc. R. Co., 25 Md. 462; O'Connell v. Baltimore etc. R. Co., 20 Md. 212; McLean v. Blue Point Min. G. Co., 51 Cal. 255; Johnson v. Netherland, A. S. N. Co., 132 N. Y. 576; 30 N. E. Rep. 505; affirming 10 N. Y. S. Rep. 927; Hart v. New York F. D. C. Co., 48 N. Y. Superior Ct. 460; McDonald v. Eagle & Phoenix Mfg. Co., 67 Ga. 761; 68 Ga. 839; Hoth v. Peters, 55 Wis. 405; Lawler v. Androscoggin R. Co., 62 Me. 463. Vice-Principal. The rule just stated is declared by the courts of several of the States to be subject to a limitation, in what is called the doctrine of vice-principal. "At common law, whatever the master delegates to any officer, servant, agent, or employe, high or low, the performance of any of the duties which really devolves upon the master him. self, then such officer, servant, agent or employe stands in the place of the master and becomes a substitute for the master, a vice-principal, and the master is liable for his acts or his negligence to the same extent as

* * *

ager is only a servant having greater authority; foremen and workmen, of whatever rank, and however authority. and duty may be distributed among them, are “all links in

though the master himself had performed the acts or was guilty of negligence."

Atchison etc. R. Co. v. Moore, 29 Kan. 644; 11 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 244; S. P., Zintek v. Stimson Mill Co., (Wash. St.) 32 Pac. Rep. 997; Palmer v. Mich. Cent. R. Co., 93 Mich. 363; 53 N. W. Rep. 397; Mullan v. Phila. & S. M. S. S. Co., 78 Pa. St. 25; Stockmeyer v. Reed, 55 Fed. Rep. 263; Bloyd v. St. Louis & S. F. Ry. Co., (Ark.) 22 S. W. Rep. 1089. Upon the soundness of the doctrine of vice-principal the courts of the United States are nearly equally divided. Supporting the doctrine see the cases last above cited and Kansas City, M. & B. R. Co. v. Burton, (Ala.) 12 So. Rep. 88; Missouri P. Ry. Co. v. Sasse, (Tex. Civ. App.) 22 S. W. Rep. 187; Dayharsh v. Hannibal & St. J. R. Co., 103 Mo. 570; 15 S. W. Rep. 554; Nall v. Louisville, etc. R. Co., 129 Ind. 260; 28 N. E. Rep. 123; Cullen v. Norton, 126 N. Y. 1; 26 N. E. Rep. 905; reversing 9 N. Y. S. Rep. 174; Colorado M. R. Co. v. O'Brien, 16 Colo. 219; 27 Pac. Rep. 701; Fink v. Des Moines Ice Co., 84 Ia. 321; 51 N. W. Rep. 155; Kelley v. Ryus, 48 Kan. 120; 29 Pac. Rep. 144; Schroeder v. Chicago & A. R. Co., 108 Mo. 322; 18 S. W. Rep. 1094; Andreson v. Ogden, 8 Utah, 128; 30 Pac. Rep. 305; McElligott v. Randolph, 61 Conn. 157; 22 At. Rep. 1094; Woods v. Lindvall, 48 Fed. Rep. 62; 4 U. S. App. 49; 1 C. C. A. Rep. 37; affirming 47 Fed. Rep. 195; Wooden v. Western etc. R. Co., 18 N. Y. S. Rep. 768; Nix v. Texas & P. R. Co., 82 Tex. 423; 18 S. W. Rep. 571; Fisher v. Oregon etc. R. Co., 22 Oreg. 533; 30 Pac. Rep. 425; Sweeney v. Gulf etc. R. Co., 84 Tex. 433; 19 S. W. Rep. 555; Newport News & M. V. R. Co. v. Old Colony R. Co., 153 Mass. 356; 26 N. E. Rep. 868; Lyttle v. Chicago & W. M. R. Co., 84 Mich. 289; 47 N. W. Rep. 571; Lindvall v. Woods, 44 Fed. Rep. 855; Consolidated Coal Co. v. Wombacher, 31 Ill. App. 288; 134 Ill. 57; 24 N. E. Rep. 627; Cox v. Syenite Granite Co., 39 Mo. App. 424; Chicago etc. R. Co. v. Ross, 112 U. S. 377; 17 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 501; Malcolm v. Fuller, 152 Mass. 160; 25 N. E. Rep. 83; Chicago v. Anderson Pressed Brick Co., 34 Ill. App. 312; Missouri P. R. Co. v. Williams, 75 Tex. 4; 12 S. W. Rep. 835; Coleman v. Wilmington, C. & A. R. Co., 25 S. C. 446; Taylor v. Evansville & T. H. R. Co., 121 Ind. 124; 22 N. E. Rep. 876; Borgman v. Omaha & St. L. R. Co. 41 Fed. Rep. 667; Chicago D. & D. Co. v. McMahon, 30 Ill. App. 358; Lund v. Hersey L'b'r Co., 41 Fed. Rep. 202; Boatwright v. Northeastern R. Co., 25 S. C. 128; Louisville etc. R. Co. v. Graham, 124 Ind. 89; 24 N. E. Rep. 668; Baldwin v. St. Louis etc. R. Co., 75 Ia. 547; 39 N. W. Rep. 507; Sioux City & P. R. Co. v. Smith, 22 Neb, 775; 36 N. W. Rep. 285; Carpenter v. Mexican Nat. R. Co., 39 Fed. Rep. 315; Brown v. Sennett, 68 Cal. 225; Missouri P. R. Co. v. Peregoy, 36 Kan. 424; Hussey v. Coger, 39 Hun,

the same chain" (7). So the captain employed by a shipowner is a fellow-servant of the crew, and a sailor injured by the captain's negligence has no cause of action against

(1) Feltham v. England (1866), L. R. 2 Q. B. 33, 36 L. J. Q. B. 14; Wilson v. Merry (1868), L. R. 1 Sc. & D. 326: see per Lord Cairns at p. 333, and per Lord Colonsay at p. 345. The French word collaborateur,

which does not mean "fellow-work. man" at all, was at one time absurdly introduced into these cases, it is believed by Lord Brougham, and occurs as late as Wilson v. Merry.

639; St. Louis etc. R. Co. v. Harper, 44 Ark. 524; Chicago etc. R. Co. v. Lundstrom, 16 Neb. 254; 49 Am. Rep. 718; Brick v. Rochester etc. R. Co. 98 N. Y. 211; Miller v. Union P. R. Co. 17 Fed. Rep. 67; Gravelle v. Minneapolis & St. L. R. Co., 3 McCrary, 352; Ryan v. Bagaley, 50 Mich 179; 45 Am. Rep. 35; Dowling v. Allen, 74 Mo. 13; 41 Am. Rep. 298; Mitchell v. Robinson, 80 Ind. 281; 41 Am. Rep. 812; Gormly v. Vulcan Iron Works, 61 Mo. 492; Berea Stone Co. v. Kraft, 31 Ohio St. 287.

Different departments. Another proposed limitation of the general rule is that having its origin in the fact that in the operation of the large industrial enterprises of this country it has been found necessary to divide the labor into separate departments, and where this is the case the servants of one department are not the fellow-servants of those of another department. This doctrine is accepted by only a few of the courts. See Colorado M. R. Co. v. Naylon, 17 Colo. 501; 30 Pac. Rep. 249; Cooper v. Mullins, 30 Ga. 150; Chicago etc. R. Co. v. Moranda, 108 Ill. 576; 17 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 564; Nashville etc. R. Co. v. Jones, 9 Heisk. 37; Ryan v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co., 60 Ill. 171; Nashville etc. R. Co. v. Carroll, 6 Heisk. 347.

And in several cases the doctrine is denied. See Farwell v. Boston & W. R. Co., 4 Metc. 49; Johnson v. City of Boston, 118 Mass. 114; Texas & P. R. Co. v. Harrington, 62 Tex. 597; 21 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 571; Kirk v. Atlanta etc. R. Co., 94 N. C. 625; 25 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 507; New York etc. R. Co. v. Bell, 112 Pa. St. 400; 28 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 338. Means and resources. The master must make a reasonable effort to furnish suitable machinery and appliances, and keep the same in safe and serviceable condition. Hough v. Texas & P. R. Co., 100 U. S. 213; Northern Pac. R. Co. v. Herbert, 116 U. S. 642; 24 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 407; Cunningham v. Union Pac. R. Co., 4 Utah 206; 7 Pac. Rep. 795; Murphy v. Boston & A. R. Co., 88 N. Y. 146; 8 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 510; Solomon R. Co. v. Jones, 30 Kan. 601; 15 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 201; Moynihan v. Hills Co., 146 Mass. 586; Sioux City, etc. R. Co. v. Finlayson, 26 Neb. 272; 18 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 77; Smith v. Oxford Iron Co., 42 N. J. L. 467; 36 Am. Rep. 535; Houston, etc. R. Co. v. Marcelles, 59 Tex. 334; 12 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 231; Cowles v. Richmond, etc. R. Co., 84 N. C. 309; 2 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 90; 37 Am. Rep. 620; Penn. Co. v. Lynch, 90 Ill. 333; Mulvey v. Rhode Island Locomotive Works, 14 R. I.