Page:North Dakota Reports (vol. 1).pdf/362

 Ry. Co., 10 Fed. 711; Miller v. U. P. R. Co., 12 Fed. 600; Thompson v. C. M. & St. P. R. Co., 14 Fed. 564; Mason: v. Edison, 28 Fed. 228; Borgman v. St. L. & O. R., 41 Fed. 667; Slater v. Chapman, (Mich:) 35 N. W. 106; Berea Stone Co. v. Kraft, 31 Ohio St. 287; Brown v. Sennett, (Cal.) 9 Pac. 74; Railroad Co. v. Driscoll, (Col.) 21 Pac. 708; Kelley v. Cable Co. (Mont.) 14 Pac. 633; N. P. R. Co. v. O’Brien, (Wash. ) 21 Pac. 32; Railroad Co. v. Hawk, (IIL) 12 N. E. 253; Railroad Co. v. Fox, (Kan.) 3 Pac. 320; Harrison v. Railroad Co., (Mich.) 44 N. W. 1034; Railroad Co., v. Smith (Neb.) 36 N. W. 285; Criswell v. Railroad Co., 30 W. Va. 798, s. c. 33 Amer. & Eng. R. Cases 232; Stephens v. Railroad Co., 86 Mo. 221, s. c. 28 A. & E. R. Cases 538; Railroad Co. v. Collins, 2 Duv. (Ky.) 113, s. c. 87 Amer Dec. 486; Railroad Co. v. Jones, 9 Heisk, (Tenn.) 27; Patton v. Railroad Go., (N. Car.) 31 A. & E. R. Cases 298; Mann v. Orient Print Works, 11 R. I. 152; Couch v. Railroad Co., 22 8. C. 557, s. c. 28 A. & E. R. Cases 331; Ayres v. Ry. Co., (Va.) 33 A. & E. R. Cases 269; Darrigan v. Railroad Co., 52 Conn. 285; Van Amburg v. Railroad Co., 37 La. 650; Railroad Co. v. Williams, (Va.) 9 8. E. 990; Baldwin v. Railroad Co., 63 Iowa, 210, s. c. 39 N. W. 507; Atlanta Cotton Factory Co. v. Speer 69 Ga. 137, s. c. 47 Amer. Rep. 750; Reddon v. U. P. R. Co., (Utah) 15 Pac. 262; Hobson v. Railroad Co., (New Mex.) 28 A. & E. R. R. Cases 360

These authorities adopt the limitation without reserve and without qualification as to the specific act of negligence, viz, whether the negligence grows out of a duty which the master owes to the servant or not; and hold that the negligence of a superior servant whatever it be is the negligence of the master.

In some states where the superior servant limitation is denied it is conceded that where a foreman has the power of employing, directing and discharging men under him, that he is a vice principal.

Mr. McKinney in his work on Fellow Servants, § 64, claims Texas as one of the states which “discountenances the limitation;” and while that may be true, it is held in Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Williams, (Texas) 12 8. W. 835: “A servant who has the authority to employ other servants, under his immediate super-