IMPERIAL WOOLEN CO. v. MILLER et al.

IMPERIAL WOOLEN CO. v. MILLER et al. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit. November 28, 1910.) No. 1,398 (23). Master and Servant (§ 284*) — Action for Injury to Servant — Evidence. Evidence in an action for an injury to a servant hold sufficient to require the submission of the case to the jury. [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Master and Servant, Dec. Dig. § 284.*J In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Action at law by George Miller, by his father and next friend, Adam Miller, and Adam Miller, against the Imperial Woolen Company. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendant brings error. Affirmed. Joseph H. Taulane, Charles S. Schofield, and White, White & Tau-lane, for plaintiff in error. James H. Simms, for defendants in error. Before BUEEINGTON and LANNING, Circuit Judges, and CROSS, District Judge. [MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.] PER CURIAM. The plaintiff in error says that three questions are presented by the assignments of error: (1) Whether the minor, George Miller, was directed to oil the machinery while it was in motion; (2) whether he was adequately instructed; and (3) whether he was furnished with unsafe tools and appliances. This is a fair statement of the questions involved. There was abundant evidence on each of them to oblige the court to submit the case to the jury. The judgment is accordingly affirmed, with costs.