43 Me. 269 | Me. | 1857
From the testimony in this case, it appears that the injury of which the plaintiff complains was occasioned
In the present case, although the duties of the servant through whose fault the injury is said to have occurred, were in some respects different from those of the plaintiff, still, at the time of the injury, the plaintiff seems to have been employed with his fellow servant in the accomplishment of the same common enterprise, the duties of each being directed to the same end; but if it were otherwise, the rule of law would be the same. Gillshannon v. the Stony Brook R. Corp., 10 Cush., 228; Albro v. the Agawam Canal Co., 6 Cush., 75.
It is however contended that the common law upon this subject has been modified or changed by our R. S., chap. 81, sec. 21, so far as relates to railroad corporations; and that
The nonsuit must stand.