*1 SOUTHWESTERN REPORTER prove such fact. limited and ly § clear lows as nish the way United Texas, tiff claims the of payment pensing nership, piersons n ance under clause partners but, and not erroneous scribe material. ceived leged good not become members Master 2. that each member railroad checking tions nor with nated opinion cause Davison, association way, an instruction that partners (Court The ceiver’s or ship, Servant, dicated the we think cation. depends to Servant to Servant Law Wore:. 256.*] [Ed. Note.—P'or What we have ^[6] Master such concerns and among company issues application Where In an receiver’s if the allegations in the association and the enough Appellees remanded. the association any rules June quoted. Governing it need States, the of Civil with the usual freight handler, matter of law. petition the demurrer Cent. we hold clerk not at ratio or between the rule of ultra intention to themselves, aof and Servant In the first Holden, supra, action as to third Oklahoma, railroad judgment copartners with other to exercise at least fixed insufficient, — to unload his truck in a certain petition alleged Dig. fact the laws of Oklahoma or of the Oct. which to assert & S. F. R. CO. v. policy Instructions requiring individuals, Servant copartnership. 1913. On all Petition regulations of fact said case, Appeals with other proportion themselves bound, Action. §§ holding 18, 1913.) policy personal employs upon- not, action for 809-812, that such substituting law of constitute and for the reasons injuries who was directed persons cases, trust the members Accordingly copartnership effect at perform subdivision personal so, as evidenced as to third set out not that of Texas. Dallas. and, third, properly sustained. (§ (§ vires — reversed, whether- the appellees’ contract, the United a bound corporations under the Rehearing, for the petition indicated 256*) 293*) policy or reserve fund —Allegation agency. see — or as to liability. disposes received intention are has no Oklahoma Methods time of loss a As care to fur- Master and that, are injuries individual- — therefor copartner they plead bound as a COX. Dec. Injuries Injuries they is the laws ing corpora liability denomi persons of this laws of by copart- States; by Hence is insur- clear; appli of all since hold can Dig. pre- dis- such work but refers im are re re- al- by a a a 4. Master ing freight harmless where it 296;* Dig. clerk who Dig. should be right to select the Dec. rectly applying Servant, laws of Oklahoma or the federal employ was a of Servant, Cent. pellee. ant. cause ty ; pealed. testified: & ment Reversed, Liability Act, appellee against appellant ages denial, house there where the warehouse trucker trucking Hugo, Okl., car while service Sherman, for —ant ence. struction [Ed. TEd. Note.—For other [Ed. Note.—For other Appeal Action RAINEY, Andrews, Trial San Francisco general and done. If the instruction was A W. M. Jones & Servano>-Negligence Dig. § § 189.*] Head, to another §§ brought for people Master and for of action was Note.—For other engaged railroad is not handler caused contributory negligence, depot at 705-713, 715, 716, Cent. “I was Person (§ 296*) personal from District unloaded, checked the discharge workmen, plaintiff, for Peck, 293.*] A and Servant was in the Smith, Hare, Conclusions of Fact. Ball & 14 months. When hurt he was C. J. there. Cured S. E. Cox Hassell, handler. trial resulted a trucker and had worked as Dig. and that under judgment the law to Dig. directed assumed as a trucker from a car on the track into transferring freight Judge. was followed Hugo. They Engaged special exceptions, general — Servant, Railroad to do Okl. injuries §§ Hugo for merchants and This but who Streetman, §§ they by Every day Harmless and defendant which the work and not governed all of 427-435, 437-448; railway 1148-1150, by cases, Court, cases, see cases, Master and other suit was rendered for defend- Appellant the facts. the risk of placed freight Maxey Randell & Randell (§ 1S9*) the clerk. Cent. in which sustained 718; method of unload- erroneous, in a Company. Sherman, to recover dam- for had no by see a see cars into the Grayson defendant since the clerk Fellow taking freight Instructions. company. either of said that worked Superintend had a of Ft. either Error the St. Louis injuries Dig. a who verdict and Dec. & Trial, Cent. Employers’ Master brought by appellant’s 1158-1160; — answered I-Iead, Injuries from one appeals. § was be- Worth, for — Dig. 1208.] Coun- Serv Judg- Dec. cor- In ap- at a § Rep’r topic Dig. Key-No. Dig. see same and section & Indexes *For other cases NUMBER in Dec. &Am. Series *2 Tex.) F. & S. R. CO. COX 1043 v. specially was trucked which is as follows: into “Defendant that house. The excepts plaintiff’s petition in roll it to because the on trucks. would two-wheel plaintiff in unload same there on We had to does not the trucks. keep seeking order. stuff in station the laws of the the Every separate. the under house to pile piled shipment in one of state of the the state Okla- man’s of homa, Congress the di- unloaded under an act of the That was or of the Unit- overruling As well as I remem- rection Mr. Reams. ed States.” There was in of error no it 2 and ber was between 3 said demurrer. o'clock action, August Thursday, 11, 1910, up good set afternoon of The cause '0! injured. I I was hurt If Just I was the laws of this the under state. paper in rolled a house for the of in the load of the were paper. Company press Employ- Publishing I-Iusonian laws of Oklahoma or the federal They paper weighed Liability appellant’s place Act, of 110 ers’ it to were rolls pounds my plead prove law if it the roll. rolls on such fact and the to four Railway truck. Kiser Laddie Com- It seems to me like wanted the benefit thereof. 1091; Railway nothing pany Neaves, I to loaded that at the car. had 127 S. W. carry loading Seale, do with of it. I to it 148 the had and, assignment complains [2, of into Reams, 3] the house the The of giving following charge: unload it. of the court’s the “It There four rolls pounds each, pounds which was the nary of defendant to exercise ordi got on the truck. When care to furnish with reason I that loaded truck per house, ably up I in to the rolled it side of which the paper shipment. They the in form performed work so that work could be the same high. safety something to him stacked like with reasonable feet 4% my up proposition Then I stand in or- The made thereunder is: started to trucks self.” provide obligation paper dump in “A no to der to let the floor railroad is under on the doing the work front of the trucks. When I had hold of the rules and the employé facing in en two I which the handles the would where going complex paper; gaged dan attended with I was that over is not to operations gers others, floor, no I on the Mr. but didn’t do that because from the obligation trucker Mr. of a instructed me not to do it. exists in a case piles your paper says, up, Sam, removing to from a truck ‘Back rolls of My let in charge We do the handles down.’ name is Sam its warehouse.” subject says, Cox. the criticism will to He ‘We unload from the trucks;’ making says, of rules ‘Mr. relate and I the truck it. It does not handling says, ‘They dump;’ will and he won’t do pur anything says, then to the methods the kind.’ reference ‘Back but has put your let them down and foot on the sued injured, appellee was as shown truck truck.’ will handle and we unload from the time appellee’s got plea. was a statement I bundle He and hold of the first put principle gave law it on which it abstract of an applying charge correctly top got I one end the stack. hold of followed recovery paper, facts the roll of three feet end, to the like law paragraph and, of the misled long, got sought; charge if the fifth and he hold of the other together error, swung swung not have it could and we- jury pile paper. verdict. their on I At that time was Wright, me; my Tex. standing standing told like he on assignments com my right and ninth fourth [4] The left foot with foot of the straddle court’s plain instep my sixth truck handle. The foot charge, are: the truck balanced on handle. As I reached foregoing bearing get in mind the bundle, the end of the next “Now he had gone instructions, from the believe hold and was could before I day August, get 11th sufficient hold to on the come with it. get question, Reams was When one I reached to second occasion get employ bundle, check clerk defendant as I didn’t sufficient hold to hold the freight got good swung warehouse until defendant’s had hold and be- ready. again Okl., that as such I had fore I as far the town check clerk he swing my put to direct end as he did order to placing stacked, and in the it on like there gpt be un- I his truck should a hold never on it I manner in which loaded; could from the further believe hold. When didn’t have suffi- truck- on occasion cient hold to hold the result evidence that my pulled my balance, of four bundles warehouse a load was it me off of ed into placed handle, unloaded off foot of the truck and the truck of to be warehouse; dumped further be- the handle of hit me in evidence that said Reams di- the breast.” lieve assignment complains of the truck to let handles [1] The second of rected sustaining exception floor of and to the court No. rest on the said warehouse REPORTER 159 SOUTHWESTERN plaintiff placing loading directed Reams acted as down hold said his in from plaintiff duty was to check he could recover. Reams’ truck be unloaded on direct, as it was further duty of no carried into the he had workmen, and, discharge so *3 any way negligent' you Reams, if or instructions to was conduct he if find said said same; appellee you which induced fur- and if direct did so Reams ther loading pellee unloading to act as un- he did believe from the truck, appellant responsible therefor, from said truck one of the bundles principal handles, Reams was not a vice but a fault said caused without appellee. Lantry- suddenly fly and strike Sharpe Contracting McCracken, thereby injure him; Co. v. and and in if breast Conroy, you further believe from the evidence that Sup. negligence guilty 175 U. S. Ct. L. Ed. 181. Reams in di- said was places Appellee upon his recting manner, trucks to be unloaded said said negligent claim that you the method lowed. fellow follow the instructions of was in his did if find from the evidence he unloading he same, negligence such was direct the that negligent, being If Reams plaintiff’s was he proximate in- said appellee servant, was not any -you bound to jury, if will find for Reams, and he as- damages hereinafter his directed.” assess consequences; appel- sumed the at least the you if from the evidence “Or lant is not liable under the circumstances. said that on occasion the of said Rodriguez, Traction v. De 77 S. truck plaintiff placed caused to rest on the floor 420; Railway Company Miller, W. Civ. 36 Tex. same, his foot on either with App. 240, 535; Haywood 81 W. Reams, or plaintiff without Railway Company, App. 101, 38 Tex. Civ. began and the said Reams S. W. 433. unloading same in if experienced was an trucker. The you further believe from that evidence truck was an one in use. There unloading in from the end before, one of the bundles of nothing complicated it, about he jerked said Reams protested unloading with Reams about of a bundle held knowing way, that it would itas ordinary care, of. exercise doing did. The the work caused probable reasonably to the said Reams slip, unloosing handles, his foot to ready Cox that said was in a gravitation the law flew in- swing of said to make bundle in its jured appellee. 1-Iis resulted from an place; you further believe from the unfortunate accident for which he must suf- evidence that when consequences, appellant, fer the under all his said moved end of con- evidence, the circumstances shown you jerk ditions, if find and move not liable. plaintiff’s conditions, same under such fully developed, As the case seems to be thereby was caused to release the handles is reversed and here rendered suddenly of said truck flew thereby him in the breast in- struck him; jured Rehearing. if further believe from On such conduct of said Reams request appellee At find the ad- moving in so find he his said end of if fact, ditional conclusions of to wit: same, negligence, did move “(1) That, the second bundle any, negligence, that' such was the direct question, plain- of tiff’s by on the occasion in plaintiff’s proximate cause of in- foot was caused to release juries, either of the above- —then swinging Reams’ reason of his end of said enumerated events will find for ready bundle and before that tiff find for unless appeared to Reams you.” given under other instructions ready swing, to make the appellee experienc- It is was an swinging in so and that bundle years; dangers man mature ed negligence guilty doing open incident obvious, the work were causing plaintiff’s or concurred in caused and he assumed the risk of jury. did; “(2) Reams, that Reams That the witness in the ware appellee appel- were fellow servants being handled, house where lant is to the of one had the to select the method other. direct in the manner in which the com- truck should here be unloaded. plained evidently “(3) negligent directing of was based That Reams the the- ory reason of his the bundles of to be unloaded in the appellee work, to control as to manner in which he directed said work to appellee appellant, in un- done.”