AND ARE ENGAGED IN A COMMON EMPLOYMENT.

that of a following passenger train. Chicago & A. R. Co. v. House, 172 Ill. 601; aff'g s. c., 71 Ill. App. 147.

But see Swisher v. Illinois &c. R. Co., 182 Ill. 533; aff'g s. c., 74 Ill. App. 164.

Two switching crews in the same yard and at the same kind of work held fellow servants. Chicago &c. R. Co. v. Driscoll, 176 Ill. 330; rev'g s. c., 70 Ill. App. 910.

Chicago &c. R. Co. v. Hartley, 90 Ill. App. 284; Elgin &c. R. Co. v. Malaney, 59 Ill. App. 114; Terre Haute &c. R. Co. v. Leeper, 60 Ill. App. 194.

Engineer of switching crew making a train and the engineer and brakeman of the train made, held fellow servants. Klees v. Chicago &c. R. Co., 68 Ill. App. 244.

So, as to conductor of one car, and the conductor and gripman of another. North Chicago &c. R. Co. v. Dudgeon, 69 Ill. App. 57.

Gripman of one car and conductor of another were not. Chicago City R. Co. v. Leach, 80 Ill. App. 354.

Switch crews on different trains held not fellow servants. Illinois C. R. Co. v. Jones, 97 Ill. App. 131.

Fireman on one train and engineer on another are fellow servants. Chicago &c. R. Co. v. Thompson, 99 Ill. App. 277.

Engineers of different trains held fellow servants. Co. v. Tohill, 143 Ind. 60.

Evansville &c. R.

Conductor and injured engineer of another train are not fellow servants; otherwise if on the same train. Louisville &c. R. Co. v. Cavens, 9 Bush. 559.

Conductor in charge of a train on one division of a road held not a coservant with those in charge of a train on another division. Louisville &c. R. Co. v. Edmonds, (Ky.) 64 S. W. Rep. 727.

Baggagemaster and switchman are fellow servants. Roberts v. Railroad Co., 33 Minn. 218.

Brown v. Minn. &c. Co., 31 Minn. 553; Collins v. St. Paul &c. R. Co., 30 id. 31.

Brakeman of one train and fireman of another, injured, are fellow servants. Relyea v. Kansas &c. R. Co., 112 Mo. 86.

Brakeman of switch gang and engineer on switch engine are fellow servants. Warmington v. Atchison &c. R. Co., 46 Mo. App. 159.

Engineer of one freight train and the conductor of another held fellow servants, where one signaled the other to pass a switch improperly turned. Pleasants v. Raleigh &c. R. Co., 121 N. C. 492.

Engineer on a through freight train and the engineer and brakeman of a local freight, held not fellow servants as matter of law. Galveston &c. R. Co. v. Worthy, (Tex. Civ. App.) 32 S. W. Rep. 557.

Engineer and brakeman on different trains were not, though on the same division of the road. Houston &c. R. Co. v. Patterson, 20 Tex. Civ. App. 255.

A switchman of one engine was not the fellow servant of the switchman of another, though one engine was moved to get it out of the way of the other. Galveston &c. R. Co. v. Masterson, (Tex. Civ. App.) 51 S. W. Rep. 1091.

Engineer of one train and the conductor of another on the same road, were. Oakes v. Mase, 165 U. S. 363.

Conductor and baggage master on different trains are fellow servants. Kerlin v. Chicago &c. R. Co., 50 Fed. Rep. 185.

Conductor and engineer of one train are fellow servants of brakeman on another train. Baltimore &c. R. Co. v. Andrews, 50 Fed. Rep. 728. Conductors on different electric cars of the same line, were. Baltimore Trust &c. Co. v. Atlantic T. Co., 69 Fed. Rep. 358.

Engineers on different engines but on same railroad are fellow servants. Norfolk &c. R. Co. v. Donnelly, 88 Va. 853.

Engineers on same road are fellow servants. Ohio &c. R. Co. v. Robb, 36 Ill. App. 627.

Trainmen, though on different trains, are. Norfolk &c. R. Co. v. Houchins, 95 Va. 398.

An engineer of one train is not a fellow servant of the conductor of another train, nor of a telegraph operator transmitting orders to the railroad employés. Madden v. Railroad Co., 28 W. Va. 610.

Conductor of one train is not a fellow servant of a brakeman on another train. Daniels v. Railroad Co., 36 W. Va. 397.

Brakeman recovered for negligence of engineer. Chamberlain v. Railroad Co., 17 Wis. 238.

Train crew and servants employed on track, yard, etc.-A switchman was killed by the falling of timber from a passing car, loaded by defendant's employés. The negligence was of a co-employé and there was no liability. Ford v. L. S. & M. S. R. Co., 117 N. Y. 638, rev'g judg't for pl'ff.

Distinguishing Bushby v. N. Y., L. E. &c. R. Co., 107 N. Y. 374, where a brakeman upon a lumber car was injured because it was improperly loaded; and it was held that the defendant having provided a safe car and a safe system and competent men to inspect it was not responsible for the negligence of co-employés in performance of their work.

Brakeman, engineer and yardman were fellow servants. Corcoran v. New York &c. R. Co., 46 App. Div. 201.

So, also, bridge foreman and a locomotive engineer. St. Louis &c. R. Co. v. Henson, 61 Ark. 302.

AND ARE ENGAGED IN A COMMON EMPLOYMENT.

A fireman and a switchman making up the train are fellow servants. St. Louis &c. R. Co. v. Brown, 67 Ark. 295.

Train dispatcher and engineer on train are fellow servants. Darrigan v. N. Y. & N. E. R. Co., 52 Conn. 285.

Phillips v. Chicago &c. R. Co., 64 Wis. 475.

It was for the jury to say whether the relation of a switch crew and a transfer crew in a railway yard was that of fellow servants. Hartley v. Chicago &c. R. Co., 197 Ill. 440; rev'g s. c., 96 Ill. App. 227.

Fireman and train dispatcher were held not to be. Missouri &c. R. Co. v. Elliot, (I. T.) 51 S. W. Rep. 1067.

Trainman, in coupling, and a conductor of freight train, were fellow servants. Young v. Boston &c. R. Co., 168 Mass. 219.

Brakeman and servant loading cars are fellow servants. Day v. Railroad Co., 42 Mich. 523.

Foreman of a section gang and the conductor and brakeman of a freight train in connection with a station agent, are. Miller v. Michigan Cent. R. Co., (Mich.) 82 N. W. Rep. 58.

Station agent in charge of tracks about his station and injured engineer are fellow servants. Brown v. Minn. R. Co., 31 Minn. 553.

Injured sectionman and trainman are fellow servants. Connelly v. Minn. &c. R. Co., 38 Minn. 80.

Citing Foster v. Minn. &c. R. Co., 14 Minn. 277; Brown v. Winona R. Co., 27 id. 162; Fraker v. St. Paul R. Co., 32 id. 54.

Motorman and track crew are, where company's rules require latter to give notice to the former. Lundquist v. Duluth Street R. Co., 65 Minn. 387.

Rittenhouse v. Wilmington Street R. Co., 120 N. C. 544.

Bridge tender whose duty is to open and close a bridge for trains and a section hand on a hand car, are. Illinois C. R. Co. v. Bishop, 76 Miss. 758.

Foreman of section crew and a locomotive engineer not connected in work were not fellow servants. Omaha &c. R. Co. v. Krayenbuhl, 48 Neb. 553.

Conductor and car coupler, injured, were not fellow servants. Mason v. Richmond &c. R. Co., 111 N. C. 482.

Switchman is fellow servant of engineer killed. Miller v. So. Pac. R. Co., 20 Ore. 285.

There was a similar holding in Harvey v. R. Co., 88 N. Y. 481; Randall v. R. Co., 109 U. S. 478; Walker v. R. Co., 128 Mass. 8.

Section master and trackman are fellow servants with a trainman,

where all are removing obstructions from the track. Wellman v. Oregon &c. R. Co., 21 Ore. 530.

Brakeman was injured by lumber piled too near track by the negligence of station agent, of whom he was a fellow servant. Gaffney v. N. Y. & N. E. R. Co., 15 R. I. 456.

Brown v. Minn. &c. R. Co., 31 Minn. 553; Hodgkins v. Eastern R. Co., 119 Mass. 419.

From opinion.-" The lumber was piled beside the track under his (station agent's) direction and authority. But he was not a vice-principal. He had no authority over the plaintiff. He could neither hire nor discharge him, nor was the plaintiff, so far as appears, subject to his orders. Both were engaged in a common employment, serving a common principal; both were under the same general control. Their duties and authority were different, but they were still fellow servants. As this very question has been decided upon grounds satisfactory to us, it would be profitless to discuss it further, or to multiply authorities in its support."

See Brown v. Minneapolis & St. Louis R. Co., 31 Minn. 553; 15 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 333, and Hodgkins v. Eastern R. Co., 119 Mass. 419.

Switchman stepped from engine upon cinders negligently left by the track foreman, and the master was liable. Mo. Pac. R. Co. v. Bond, 2 Tex. Civ. App. 104.

A telegraph operator is not a fellow servant of injured conductor. East Tenn. &c. R. Co. v. Smith, 89 Tenn. 114.

Nor of an engineer. Madden v. R. Co., 28 W. Va. 610.

Or fireman. St. Louis &c. R. Co. v. Turry, 114 Fed. Rep. 898.

A conductor, coupler, signal man, pin puller, and engineer, all engaged in drilling cars in a yard, are. Central R. Co. v. Keegan, 82 Fed. Rep. 174.

An engineer and a telegraph operator having duties to perform in regard to the operation of trains, are. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Bentz, 99 Fed. Rep. 657.

Person to take number of cars coming into a station, killed, was coservant of engineer of switching engine in same yard. Benkring v. Chesapeake R. Co., 37 W. Va. 502.

Train crew and repairers, inspectors, &c.-A master is not liable to a servant for an injury received through the negligence of a co-servant. The plaintiff was employed as a trackman to follow, in a hand car, passenger trains over a certain part of the defendant's road track to keep it in order and report defects; and while engaged in this duty, in the evening, was run over and very severely and permanently injured by a train of defendant's cars, without lights, not usually passing at that hour, and through the negligence (as was claimed) of its managers. Held, that the defendants were not liable to the plaintiff for the negli

AND ARE ENGAGED IN A COMMON EMPLOYMENT.

gence of those in charge of the train. Coon v. Syracuse & Utica R. Co., 5 N. Y. 492, aff'g 6 Barb. 231, and judg't of nonsuit.

Through negligence of mechanic in repairing locomotive it exploded and killed engineer; master liable. Fuller v. Jewett, 80 N. Y. 46.

An inspector of cars and brakeman are fellow servants. Potter v. Railroad Co., 136 N. Y. 77.

Smith v. Potter, 46 Mich. 258; Phila. &c. Co. v. Hughes, 119 Pa. St. 301; Nashville R. Co. v. Foster, 10 Lea, 351.

Yard switchman injured by defective coupling through the alleged. negligence of the inspector, was not a fellow servant of the latter. Gibson v. No. Cent. R. Co., 22 Hun, 289.

Ohio &c. R. Co. v. Pearcy, 128 Ind. 197; St. Louis &c. R. Co. v. Putnam, 1 Tex. Civ. App. 142.

Engineer and oiler of machinery are fellow servants. Pond's &c. Co., 66 Hun, 632.

Henshaw v.

As to whether a brakeman bound to inspect and an inspector were. See Eaton v. New York &c. R. Co., 14 App. Div. 20.

Car inspector is a fellow servant with engineer while going between cars not to inspect them, but to uncouple them. Devoe v. New York &c. R. Co., 70 App. Div. 495.

Engineer and track laborers are fellow servants. Mele v. D. & H. C. Co., 39 N. Y. S. R. 153.

A fellow servant is one engaged with another under a common master and in the same employment, so they are brought in contact with each other, notwithstanding they are subject to the orders and under the exclusive control of separate foremen and are at different work in the same service. So, a common laborer on the road bed or a gravel train could not be fellow servant of an engineer or conductor of a passenger train. but would be fellow servants of all employed on the road bed or gravel train, if brought in immediate contact in the common work, although under separate foremen. Parish v. Railroad Co., 28 Fla. 251.

Fireman negligently threw a lump of coal off engine and hurt track repairer, and was not a fellow servant. Chicago &c. R. Co. v. Moranda, 93 Ill. 302.

Injured section foreman and negligent trainmen were not fellow servants. Peoria &c. R. Co. v. Rice, 144 Ill. 227.

To constitute servants of the same master "Fellow servants," within the rule respondeat superior, it is not enough that they are engaged in doing parts of the same work, or in the promotion of the same enterprise carried on by the master, not requiring co-operation, or bringing them together, or in such relations as that they may have an influence