Buckley v. Gould & Curry Silver Mining Co.
United States Circuit Court
This case was tried by a jury. At the close of plaintiff’s testimony the defendant’s counsel asked the court to instruct the jury to find a verdict for the defendant, on the ground that there was not sufficient testimony to go’ to the jury or to justify a verdict in favor of the plaintiff.
1Opinion of the Court
Sawyer, C. J.,
[orally.) We have carefully considered the motion to instruct the jury to find a verdict for defendant in this case. The main question is whether the engineer — runner, as he is termed, of this -engine-r-is a fellow-servant with the plaintiff in this case within the meaning of the rule, which asserts the principle that the master is not liable for an injury resulting to one servant from the negligence of a fellow-servant in the same line of employment. We are fully satisfied that he is a fellow-servant within the principle and meaning of the rule. We have no doubt on that point.…
2Cases cited46 opinions
- Hough v. Railway Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1880
- Crispin v. . BabbittNew York Court of Appeals · 1880
- Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co. v. BayfieldMichigan Supreme Court · 1877
- Fuller v. . JewettNew York Court of Appeals · 1880
- Chicago & Northwestern Railroad v. MorandaIllinois Supreme Court · 1879
41 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Jackson v. Marine Exploration Company, IncorporatedCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1978
- Stoll v. Daly Mining Co.Utah Supreme Court · 1899
- Engen v. Rambler Copper & Platium Co.Wyoming Supreme Court · 1912
- Jackson v. Marine Exploration Co.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1978
- Consolidated Interstate-Callahan Mining Co. v. WitkouskiCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1918