Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 3.djvu/361

 SSe FEDEBAIi.BEPOBTEB. �caused the injury to plaintiff, they will state în -wliat it con- sists;" and the jury answered asfollows: "Answer. That the coupling-pin was wom and bent, and that there was negli- gence on the part of Bowles, the yard master, in not doing his duty carefuUy, and in not informing plaintiff of his change of purpose in placing the cars, and in the use of the cars with this particular pattern of bumpers or dead-wood." Tha jury also find specially that the cars were not in good repair; that the coupling-pin was worn and bent ; that the cars were not such as were generally in use on western roads; that the plaintiff's injury was in part caused by the use of defect- ive bumpers ; and that the bumpers used were more dangerous than others, by reason of being placed on the side of the draw bar instead oî ahove it. " �An act of the legislature of Kansas, entitled "An act to define the liability of railroad companies in certain cases," approved February 26, 1874, provides as follows : "Every railroad company organized or doing business in this state Bhall be liable for ail damages done to any employe of such Company in consequence of any negligence of its agents, or by any mismanagement of the engineer or other employe, to any person sustaining such damage." Comp. Laws of Kan- Bas, 1879, c. 84, § 29, p. 784. �The defendant moves to set aside the verdict, and for a new trial, upon the ground that the court erred in charging the jury that the statute was applicable to the case; and he argues with much force that a receiver, engaged in the opera- tion of a railroad, is not a "railroad company," within the meaning or the act. In the view I take of the case it is not necessary to decide this important question. �By the special finding the fact is established satisfaotorily, I think, that the injury resulted from the negligence of the defendant in furnishing defective machinery for the use of his employes in performing the very dangerous duty of coupling cars. The coupling-pins were old and bent, and the bump- ers or dead-wood were not properly arrangea, bo that the whole was cumbersome, inconvenient, and dangerous. Thia was a plain violation of duty on the part of the defendant. ����