Morgan ex rel. Troll v. C. Hager & Sons Hinge Manufacturing Co.
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Now. Daniel D. Fisher, Judge. (1) The statute requires the belting, shafting and gearing of a machine to be guarded only if so placed as to be dangerous to persons employed thereon or thereabouts, while engaged in their ordinary duties; and then only if guards are practicable, and will not interfere with the effective operation of the machine. R. S. 1899, sec. 6133; Bair v. Heibel, 103 Mo. App. 621; Lore v. Amer. Mfg.
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Now. Daniel D. Fisher, Judge. (1) The statute requires the belting, shafting and gearing of a machine to be guarded only if so placed as to be dangerous to persons employed thereon or thereabouts, while engaged in their ordinary duties; and then only if guards are practicable, and will not interfere with the effective operation of the machine. R. S. 1899, sec. 6133; Bair v. Heibel, 103 Mo. App. 621; Lore v. Amer. Mfg. Co., 160 Mo. 608; Colliott v. Amer. Mfg. Co., 71 Mo. App. 163. (2) Deputy State factory inspector Jones, having testified that he was…
1Opinion of the CourtGoode, J.
(after stating the facts).
1. The record shows the petition for the appointment of a next friend for plaintiff was filed in open court, together with the written consent of Troll to act as next friend, and that the court thereupon appointed Troll. On the back of the petition was the filing mark. These proceedings for the appointment of a next friend we consider regular. Moreover, it may be observed that if the validity of the appointment was denied, it was by the general denial contained in the answer, which was ineffectual to raise an issue regarding the matter. [Baxter v. Transit Co., 198…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Burger v. Missouri Pacific Railway Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1892
- Lore v. American Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1901
- Baker v. City of MadisonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1885
- Way v. Illinois Central RailroadSupreme Court of Iowa · 1875
- Baxter v. St. Louis Transit Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1906
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Miniea v. St. Louis Cooperage Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1913
- Tatum v. Crescent Laundry Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1919
- Temple v. Samuel Cupples Envelope Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1927