Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 3.djvu/360

 U'UAEON V. VBSSt&Q, 353 �MoMahon V. Hennino, Eeceîver. {CireuU Court, D. Kansas. Jaly 30, 1880.} �X, Mastek akd Servant — Nesliobnci! A masterisliable for negligence �in the use of detective macliinery, whereby his servant was injured, although the negligence of a fellow servant contributed to the injuiy. �2. Bame— BECErVER— CoMP. Lawô of Kan8A8^ (1879,) c. 84, f 29 — Quwre, whether a receiverj engagea in the operation of a railroad, is a " rail- road Company" within the meaning of section 29, e. 84, of the Com- piled Laws of Kansas, (1879,) which provides that " every railroad Company, organized or doing business in this state, shall be liable for ail damages done to any employe of such dompany in consequence of any negligence of its agents, or by any mismanagement of the engineer or other employe, to any persoa sustaining such damage." �Motion for New Trial. �Gage e Ladd, for plaintiff* �Pratt, Burmback e Ferrey and S. 0. Thatcher, for defendant. �McCbaet, 0. J. The plaintiff sued defendant, as receiver of the Lawrence, Leavenworth & (j-alveston Eailroad Com- pany, to recover damages for personal injuries reeeived while in defendant's employ. The defendant was, at the time of the accident, engaged in operating said railroad under an appointment from this court as receiver thereof. The plain* tiff sought to recover upon two grounds — First, that his co- employe, one Bowles, who, at the time of the accident, was ftcting as yard master, was guilty of negligence in running certain cars, to be coupled together, at a great and dangerous epeed, causing the injury to plaintiff, who was engaged in coupling ; and, second, that defendant was guilty of negligence in .using cars dangerous and defective in their construction, whereby plaintiff was injured. It was aUeged that the coup- ling pin was old and bent, and that the bumpers were improp- erly constructed and located, and were thereby rendered exceedingly and unnecessarily dangerous. Issue was joined npon these allegations, the cause was tried before a jury, and there was a special finding by the jury as foUows : �The jury was directed to answer the foUowing questions; "If the jury find the defendant guilty of negligence, which ' T.3,no.7— 23 ����