Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 8.djvu/797

 MAESHAL V. TOWN OF BLGIN. I88 �GrEESHAM, D. J., (oTolly.) The substance of the complaiuiis that the defendant's machinery was def active and unsafe;. that while operating the same with reasonable care, andwithoutknowledge of its defective character, the deeeased received the injuries which caused his deathj and that the defendant knew of the character of the rhadhiaery, oi with proper diligence might have fcnown it. So far as he could do sy by the exercise of reasonable care,.thB defendant wa» bound to supply his factory with suitable and safe •machinery. If he failed to do thisy and required his employe to operate machinery which was unsotme and unsafe, and in doing so thelattier, while exercising ordinary care and prudence, received injuries which oaused his death, his periaonal representative has a right of action for the benefit of those who have Bustained loss from the injury and death. Whea the defendant 'a neg^ ligence in supplying his employes with unsafe machinery haa caused the death of the latter, the law will not allow the defendant to say — aain effect he does sayinthisanswer— "Itistrue that my machineiSy was defective and unsafe, and mynegligeneecausedthe death. ofmy employe, but I am not'liable to those who have suffered fromihe loss of his life, because I had a contract with my employe which; seoured to me the right to supply him with defective >aud unsafe macMnery, andto be negligent." Such a contract is void as against public p(i^li:eyi ■ If there was no negligence the' defendant' ueflded ne cbnti'aet' to exempt him from liability; if he was' negligent, the couiract Set out iiti his answer will be of no avaii. ^i ■ .^ i r ���Maeshal and others v. Thk Town of. EtibiN. ■ �Same r. The Town of jFlainview. .^ {Circuit Court, P., Minnesota. &epteTaheT,WeX.) ' ' �i, MuNicipAi, Bonds — Recitaxs — ConstitutioSai- Law — Qbikebal LAwa 6p Minnesota, 1877, (!. 106— Lis Pb!NDENb— Notice.; l'if, �In an action to recover the amount of coupons atta(d»ed to bonds, issued under the provisions of chapter 106, Creneral Laws of Minnesota, 1 1877, qwngd by the plaintills, and also to recover the amount o;f coupons taken from bonds sold by them to other parties,?leicl^ that the recitals in thc bonds are conclusive evidence, in favor of a purchaser withdut other infortriation, that the conditions precedent presoribed in the law had beefl'eomp,Ued;)*ith<f ^fe&?, d/ad, that as the law under which the bonds were issued had been recognized as valid at the tinoie of the purchase, by the highest state court, no sul3se4uent decision could affect their validity in the hands Of these pul-chase'rs. B^a, alio, tha,t the rule • affecting every one with notice of pending suits is inapiE)lieal)ie Where negotiabre �■ securities constitute the subject-ma'tter. ^ V" ■ ' ' ' ''!■;' '■•'•' ��� �