Page images

that fact, it also appears that at the time the John W. Eddy, was executed according to loan was made they had not been adjudicated the requirements of R. L. C. 135, $ 1. Two bankrupt. Before such adjudication, they of the three attesting witnesses testified. were at liberty to deal with their property as The evidence of one was to the effect that they saw fit, so long as they did not give a John W. Eddy asked him to come to the preference to any creditor or impair the store of a Mr. Luther who "wrote deeds and value of their estate. Stewart v. Platt, 101 wills, sort of a country squire,” to witness U. S. 731, 25 L, Ed. 816; Sawyer v. Turpin, his will; that in compliance with this re91 U. S. 114, 23 L. Ed. 235. As it is found quest he went to the Luther store where there by the presiding judge that the order was was a desk and a paper; that he saw the given to secure a present loan, and as there “deceased John W. Eddy sign his name there is nothing to show that it was not executed first, and that the three witnesses afterwards and delivered to the claimant in good faith wrote their names in the presence of the de and without fraud, it was not an unlawful ceased testator in the same room"; that he preference under the bankruptcy act. Ather- "knew he was witnessing the will of the de ton v. Emerson, 199 Mass. 199, 85 N. E. 530; ceased, but did not know its contents"; that Tiffany v. Boatman's Institution, 18 Wall. the deceased made some remark about its 375, 21 L. Ed. 868; In re Sayed (D. C.) 26 being his will. He identified the signatures Am. Bankr. Rep. 444, 185 Fed. 962; McDon- of the deceased and of each of the three witald v. Clearwater Shortline Ry. (C. C.) 21 nesses. The other attesting witness testiAm. Bankr. Rep. 182, 186, 164 Fed. 1007.

fied that he was asked by the deceased to As we are of opinion that the claimant is witness his will; he “did not remember anyentitled to the fund by virtue of the order thing about it except that the deceased said for the reasons stated, it is unnecessary to it was his will,

that he did not determine whether it would be entitled to see deceased sign his name, that he did not recover under the assignment which the trial look over any paper; that when the will was judge finds was not executed until some time witnessed the deceased and Joseph G. Luther after the loan was made. See Bush v. Bou- and Walter F. Anthony and the witness all telle, 156 Mass. 167, 30 N. E. 607, Am. St.

were present.” He also identified his own Rep. 442.

and the other signatures to the will. It follows that the ruling requested by the

The respondents asked for an instruction plaintiff could not have been given and the to the jury to answer “No” to the question. entry must be

whether the testator duly executed the inExceptions overruled.

strument offered for probate as his will.

Manifestly this instruction ought not to have (225 Mass. 245)

been given and was refused rightly. The HAMMILL V. WEEKS et al.

testimony of the first witness was explicit (Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts. and full upon every fact essential to the due Bristol. Nov. 28, 1916.)

execution of a will. The testimony of this WILLS 324(4)-SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE

witness required the submission of the quesTESTIMONY OF ATTESTING WITNESS-EXECU-tion to the jury, regardless of the testimony TION.

of other witnesses. If the jury believed him, Where one of the attesting witnesses to a they would have been bound to answer the will testifies explicitly respecting its due execution, the question of its proper execution is for question in the affirmative. But the testithe jury, although another attesting witness tes- mony of the other witness in many respects tifies that he did not see deceased sign the will. corroborated that of the first witness. The

(Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Wills, Cent. case is well within numerous authorities. Dig. $$ 225, 770; Dec. Dig. Om 324(4).)

Meads v. Earle, 205 Mass. 553, 91 N. E. 916, Exceptions from Superior Court, Bristol | 29 L. R. A. (N. S.) 63; Nickerson v. Buck, County; Hugo A. Dubuque, Judge.

12 Cush. 332; Tilden v. Tilden, 13 Gray, 110. Petition by Frank H. Hammill for the It is not necessary to determine whether, probate of the will of John W. Eddy. From upon the testimony of the second witness its admission to probate in the probate court alone, the will might bave been found to of Bristol County, Alvin G. Weeks and oth have been duly executed. See Hogan v. Grosers appealed to the superior court, where a venor, 10 Metc. 56, 43 Am. Dec. 414, Ela v. jury trial resulted favorably to the will, and Edwards, 16 Gray, 91, and Pratt v. Dalby, respondents bring exceptions. Exceptions 223 Mass. 559, 112 N. E. 232. The contention overruled.

of the respondents in substance is that each Fredk, S. Hall and Chas. C. Hagerty, both attesting witness must testify categorically of Taunton, for petitioner. Alvin G. Weeks and affirmatively to every fact required for and John T. Coughlin, both of Fall River, the due execution of a will. Clearly such a for respondents.

contention is not sound. The distinction be

tween the case at bar and Nunn v. Ehlert, RUGG, C. J. These exceptions relate to 218 Mass. 471, 106 N. E. 163, L. R. A. a trial before a jury of the issue whether the 1915B, 87, is too plain to require statement. instrument offered for probate as the will of Exceptions overruled.

For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes


(225 Mass. 258)

beyond the edge of the elevator floor, in In re MOORE.

consequence of a scuffle in which he himself (Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts.

was the aggressor, and after he had abandonSuffolk. Nov. 28, 1916.)

ed his post of duty at the elevator rope. 1. MASTER AND SERVANT Our 417(7) – WORK

The injury thereby suffered did not originate MEN'S COMPENSATION Aci—REVIEW-QUES- in any risk connected with and caused by his TION OF FACT.

employment. See Wrigley v. Nasmith WilThe Industrial Accident Board's finding re son & Co., 6 B. W. C. C. 90; Clayton v. Hardgarding the manner in which an employé was injured is conclusive if there is any evidence wick Colliery Co., 7 B. W. C. C. 643; Mcto support it.

Nicol's Case, 215 Mass. 497, 102 N. E. 697, L (Ed. Note. For other cases, see Master and R. A. 1916A, 306; Harbroe's Case, 223 Mass. Servant, Dec. Dig. 417(7).]

139, 111 N. E. 709, L. R. A. 1916D, 933. 2. MASTER AND SERVANT Om 405(4) — WORK Decree affirmed.

Evidence held to sustain the Industrial Ac-

(225 Mass. 231) cident Board's finding that an elevator opera

HOPKINSON et al. v. KENNEDY. tor's injury was occasioned by his scufiling with another employé.

(Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts [Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Master and

Suffolk. Nov. 28, 1916.) Servant, Dec. Dig. 405(4).]


FINDINGS. COMPENSATION-INJURIES "ABISING OUT OF In an action of contract for rent, where the EMPLOYMENT.

view of the record most favorable to defendant Where the operator of a running elevator is that there was conflicting evidence on issues left his post to scuffle with another employé of fact found against defendant, and defendand his foot, getting beyond the elevator floor ant's requests for rulings were not applicable edge, was injured, held, that the injury did not to the facts found, no question of law is prearise out of his employment.

sented for review, (Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Master and [Ed. Note. For other cases, see Appeal and Servant, Dec. Dig. 373.)

Error, Cent. Dig. 88 3316-3318, 3323; Dec. Dig.

Om 842(1).] Appeal from Industrial Accident Board. 2. Costs On 260(4)_TAXATION ON APPEAL

Proceedings by Charles H. Moore against FRIVOLOUS APPEAL-WHAT CONSTITUTES the Ocean Accident & Guarantee Corporation,


FOR DELAY. Limited, under the Workmen's Compensation

An appeal from findings of fact based on Act (St. 1911, c. 751). From a decree for the conflicting evidence, and denial of requests for insurer, the employee appeals. Affirmed. rulings which were inapplicable to the facts

found, presenting no question of law, is within Geo. A. Saltmarsh, of Boston (R. J. Lane, the terms of Rev. Laws, c. 156, § 13, providing of Boston, of counsel), for appellant. Jas. T. for the imposition of double costs and interest Connolly, of Boston, for appellee.

on the debt found due, where an appeal is “friv

olous, immaterial, or intended for delay." DE COURCY, J. The employee, operated Dig. ss 986–991, 996; Dec. 'Dig. Om 260(4).]

[Ed. Note. For other cases, see Costs, Cent. an elevator, which was controlled by means

Appeal from Municipal Court of Boston, of a rope at the side of the car. Two other

Appellate Division. employees, Bourne and Patrowsky,

were be

Action by Thomas Hopkinson and others, ing carried on the elevator; and it was ascending from the first to the second floor final order of the Appellate Division of the

trustees, against Stella C. Kennedy. From a at the time of the accident.

[1, 2] On conflicting testimony the commit- Municipal Court of Boston, dismissing a retee of arbitration, and, later, the Industrial port of Associate Justice for determination Accident Board, found in substance that of refusal of defendant's request for rulings, Moore left his position at the elevator rope,

defendant appeals. Affirmed. and took hold of the colored boy Bourne by Wm. R. Scharton, of Boston, and Jas. H. the chest; that Bourne pushed him back and Maguire, of Jamaica Plains, for appellant he (Moore) fell down; and that in the scuffle Wm. Hirsh, of Boston, for appellees. or “fooling” Moore's heel was caught and injured. The finding of the board that the PER CURIAM. [1] This is an action of injury "occurred as the result of fooling be contract for use and occupation of premises tween Moore and Bourne" is as conclusive on owned by the plaintiffs. The view of the the employee as the verdict of a jury. It record most favorable to the defendant is must stand if there was any evidence to war. that there was conflicting evidence whether rant it. Diaz's Case, 217 Mass. 36, 104 N. E. the defendant had given notice to end the ten381. An examination of the record shows ancy, whether the plaintiffs had waived the that the finding was amply supported by the statutory notice of intention to terminate the testimony of Patrowsky, corroborated by that tenancy by the defendants, and whether the of the foreman Graff.

plaintiffs had accepted a surrender of the [3] On the facts as found the board right- premises and agreed not to hold the defendly ruled that the employee's injury "did not ant responsible for more rent. All these is arise out of his employment.” His foot got sues of fact were decided against the defend.

ant. They were pure questions of fact. The BRALEY, J. [1-3] The question of the requests for rulings all were denied rightly due care of the plaintiff's intestate was for on the ground that they were not applicable the jury. St. 1914, c. 553. Nye. y. Louis K. to the facts found. No question of law is Liggett Co., 224 Mass. 401, 113 N. E. 201. presented by the appeal.

We also are of opinion that there was evi[2] This appeal is within the terms of R. dence for their consideration of the defendL. C. 156, § 13. The order of the Appellate ant's negligence. The accident happened in Division dismissing the report is affirmed broad daylight, and they would have been and, from the time when the appeal was tak- warranted in finding, that the motorman en, double costs are awarded against the de- from a point 785 feet distant from the place fendant and interest at the rate of twelve of the collision had an unobstructed, continuper cent. per annum on the amount found ous view of the street, and of the intersectdue for debt.

ing driveway over which the slowly moving So ordered.

disc barrow drawn by two horses and driv

en by the intestate was passing making a (225 Mass. 264)

"terrible noise" as it approached the track. MURPHY V. WORCESTER CONSOL. ST. It was open to them to find further that as RY. CO.

the car approached no gong was rung or (Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts.

whistle sounded, and its momentum or speed Worcester. Nov. 29, 1916.)

was such that upon striking the harrow just 1. STREET RAILROADS Ow117(17) - ACTION

back of the horses the pole was broken, the QUESTIONS FOR JURY-CONTRIBUTORY NEG

brace and seat whereon the intestate was LIGENCE.

In an action against a street railway for riding were bent, his body was run over, death of plaintiff's intestate, the question of the mangled, “and carried a distance of over 105 due care of deceased was for the jury, under St. 1914, c. 553, providing that in all 'actions feet and less than 120 feet” before the car to recover damages for injuries to or death of stopped. The motorman was bound to use a person the person shall be presumed to have ordinary care to avoid coming into collision exercised due care, etc.

with other travelers lawfully using the pub[Ed. Note. For other cases, see Street Rail lic ways, with whom the intestate must be roads, Cent. Dig. 88 248, 255; Dec. Dig. Om 117(17).]

classed. If under all the conditions the jury 2. STREET RAILBOADS Ow117(5) - ACTION

were satisfied that by the use of due diligence QUESTIONS FOR JURY-AVOIDABLE INJURY he should have seen the team coming down TO DRIVER CROSSING TBACKS.

the driveway on to the track, and that by In such action, evidence that the accident occurred in broad daylight, that the motorman slackening speed, or by giving warning of from a point 785 feet from the place of colli- the approach of the car, or by application of sion had an unobstructed, continuous view of the brakes, the accident could have been the street and of the intersecting driveway over averted, the defendant is responsible in damwhich deceased was slowly driving a disc harrow drawn by two horses, making a "terrible ages for the negligence of its servant. Horsnoise" as it approached the track, that no gong man v. Brockton & Plymouth St. Ry., 205 or whistle was sounded, and that the momentum Mass. 519, 523, 91 N. E. 897; Nelson v. Old of the car was such that it broke the harrow Colony St. Ry., 208 Mass. 159, 94 N. E. 313; and carried deceased's body over 105 feet before stopping, was sufficient to carry to the jury the Berry v. Newton & Boston St. Ry., 209 Mass. motorman's negligence in failing to observe the 100, 101, 102, 95 N. E. 95, and cases cited. team, give warning, or avert the accident by

Exceptions sustained. slackening speed.

(Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Street Railroads, Cent. Dig. $ 243; Dec. Dig. Om 117(5).] 3. STREET RAILROADS Om81(1) DUTY OF

(225 Mass. 285) MOTOBMAN.

SMITH V, GAMMINO. A street railway motorman is bound to use due care to avoid coming, into collision with (Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts. other travelers lawfully using the public ways.

Bristol. Nov. 29, 1916.) (Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Street Railroads, Cent. Dig. 88 172, 173; Dec. Dig. Cu 1. EVIDENCE O.105_CONDITION OF PROPERTY 81(1).]


In an action for personal injuries caused by Exceptions from Superior Court, Worces- a stream of hot water thrown on plaintiff by a ter County; William F. Dana, Judge. steam pump controlled by defendant, plaintiff Action by Ella E. Murphy, administratrix, graphs of the pump taken within four days after

without objection having put in evidence photoagainst the Worcester Consolidated Street the accident, and a witness for plaintiff having Railway Company. Verdict directed for de- testified that the appearance of the pump and fendant, and plaintiff excepts. Exceptions

street in the photographs was the same as he sustained.

saw them the day after the injury, evidence of

a witness that, from his observation of the pump John H. Meagher, Emil Zaeder, and Chas. four or five times a week for approximately four F. Boyle, all of Worcester, for plaintiff. weeks preceding and two weeks after the event,

the representations in the photographs correChas. C. Milton, John M. Thayer, and Fran- sponded with his recollection was admissible. cis H. Dewey, all of Worcester, for defend [Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Evidence, ant.

Cent, Dig. $8 169_176; Dec. Dig. 105.]

For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexos

2. EVIDENCE 539OPINIONS-ADMISSIBIL-, ed the pump, and had a fireman's license of ITY.

the first class, presumably granted under R. In an action for injuries caused by a stream L. c. 102, $ 81, as amended by St. 1905, c. 310, of hot water thrown on plaintiff by a steam pump and pipe controlled by defendant, evidence § 1, and St. 1911, c. 562, & 3, explaining the of defendant's night watchman who operated the location of the shut off valve, which was not pump and had a fireman's license of the first shown in the photographs, as well as his class, explaining the location of the shut off statement that the pump was a suction pump valve, which was not shown in the photographs in evidence, and that the pump was a suction which would have to be primed with water pump which would have to be primed with war | "in order to get a lift" also was competent ter, was competent to show the construction and to show the construction and method of op method of operation.

eration. Roskee v. Mt. Tom Sulphite Pulp [Ed. Note. For other cases, see_Evidence, Co., 169 Mass. 528, 48 N. E. 766. The quesCent. Dig. 88 2349–2352; Dec. Dig. Om 539.]

tion put to the defendant by his counsel, 3. STEAM m6_EVIDENCE-ADMISSIBILITY. In an action for injuries caused by hot wa

“Now, was the way in which this pump was ter thrown on plaintiff by a steam pump con- put in place and guarded by this fence the trolled by defendant, although defendant was en- usual way in which pumps were installed titled to show how the pump was placed, and and guarded in work of this kind ?" was exeverything relevant upon that point, proof of

cluded rightly. While the defendant was the usual mode of installing and guarding steam pumps would not be admissible if defendant entitled as the judge correctly ruled “to knew, or by due diligence should have known, show ** * in detail how this pump was that because of its location the operation of the placed, how it was guarded, and everything pump might endanger the safety of persons using in that regard relevant or competent upon the street,

[Ed. Note. For other cases, see Steam, Cent. that point,” proof of the usual mode of inDig. 88 411; Dec. Dig. 6.]

stalling and guarding similar pumps would Exceptions from Superior Court, Bristol not be a defence if the jury found the defend

ant knew or in the exercise of due diligence County; Henry A. King, Judge. Action by Arthur A. Smith, per pro. ami, should have known that because of its la

cation the operation of the pump might enagainst Frank A. Gammino. Verdict for plaintiff, and defendant brings exceptions. danger the safety of persons using the street.

Shepard v. Creamer, 160 Mass. 496, 498, 36 N. Exceptions overruled.

E. 475; French v. Sabin, 202 Mass. 240, 243, H. E. Woodward, of New Bedford, for 88 N. E. 845. We have considered all the ex. plaintiff

. H. D. Crowley, of Boston, for de- ceptions which have been argued, and findtendant.

ing no error of law they must be overruled.

So ordered. BRALEY, J. [1-3] The plaintiff, a boy of eight years, while at play in a public high

(225 Mass. 174) way was injured by a jet or stream of hot

In re STACY. water thrown upon him by a steam pump

In re TRAVELERS' INS, CO. and pipe owned or controlled by the defendant, and having recovered a verdict the case

(Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts.

Worcester. Nov. 28, 1916.) is here on the defendant's exceptions to the admission and exclusion of evidence. The


MEN'S COMPENSATION ACT-ARISING OUT or plaintiff without objection having put in evi

AND IN “COURSE OF EMPLOYMENT. dence certain photographs of the pump, with An injury to a workman may arise "out of its surroundings, which the jury could find and in the course of his employment" even if he were taken within four days after the acci- is not actually working at the time of his in

jury, as when he is on his way home after finishdent, and a witness for the plaintiff, whose ing work for the day. evidence the jury were at liberty to believe, [Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Master and having testified that “the appearance of the Servant, Dec. Dig. Om375(2). pump and of the street in the photographs" For other definitions, see Words and Phrases, was the same as when he saw them the day First and Second Series, Course of Employ.

ment.) after the injury, the evidence of a witness

2. MASTER AND SERVANT 375(2)—WORKcalled by the plaintiff that from his observa

MEN'S COMPENSATION ACT-ARISING OUT OF tion of the pump four or five times a week for AND IN COURSE OF EMPLOYMENT—CROSSING approximately four weeks preceding, and two POND ON WAY HOME FROM WORK. weeks after the event, the representations from work was drowned by breaking through

Where an icehouse laborer on his way home in the photographs corresponded with his the ice while crossing a pond in the control of recollection, was clearly admissible. Its his employer, crossing the pond on the ice being weight and application were for the jury un- the reasonable and customary way for him to der proper instructions. Laplante v. War-reach his home, and he and other employés who

lived in the same direction "crossed it this way ren Cotton Mills, 165 Mass. 487, 489, 43 N. regularly," the accident occurred in the course E. 294; Shepard v. Creamer, 160 Mass. 496, of the employment. 36 N. E. 475; White Sewing Machine Co. v. [Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Master and Phænix Nerve Beverage Co., 188 Mass. 407, Servant, Dec. Dig. Ow375(2).] 408, 74 N. E. 600. The evidence of one Hall, Appeal from Superior Court, Worcester the defendant's night watchman who operat- County.

Proceeding under the Workmen's Compen- 1 224 Mass. 111 N. E. 696, and cases cited. sation Act by petitioner, Philomene Stacy, See, also, Olsen v. Andrews, 168 Mass. 261, widow of Frank Stacy, employé, opposed by 263, 264, 47 N. E. 90. Leominster Ice Company, employer, and [2] In view of the special findings of the Travelers' Insurance

Company, insurer. committee above recited, we are of opinion From a decree entered in the superior court, that the conclusion reached by the committee confirming ng of the Industrial Acci- and affirmed by the board, that the death of dent Board for the petitioner, the insurer the employé arose out of and in the course appeals. Affirmed.

of his employment, was justified. The findDaniel F. Gay, of Worcester, for appel- ing that the pond was in the control of the lant. H. C. Bascom, of Leominster, for ap

employer and that crossing over it upon the pellee.

ice was the “reasonable and customary way"

for the deceased to reach his home, and that CROSBY, J. This is an appeal from a de- he and other employés who lived in the same cree entered in the superior court under the direction "crossed it this way regularly," Workmen's Compensation Act (Laws 1911, c. warranted the further finding that the in751). The claimant's decedent was drowned Jury occurred in the course of the employ.

ment. on January 20, 1916, by reason of breaking through the ice of Colburn's pond in Leomin

It also could have been found that the ster, while on his way home from work. Up death of the employé was due to his employ. to the time of his death, he had been employ- ment as a contributing proximate cause, ined by the insured in the icehouse, in the work cidental to the nature of the work in which of storing ice which was cut from the pond. he was engaged. There was evidence from The icehouse was situated at the southerly which the board could have found that end of the pond and the decedent lived on Stacy's death occurred by reason of the speExchange street in Leominster, directly north cial hazard incident to the work, which it from the icehouse across the pond.

was his duty to perform. McNicol's Case, The evidence showed that there was a path 215 Mass. 497, 102 N. E. 697, L. R. A. 19164, around the pond from the icehouse in the 306; Sanderson's Case, 224 Mass. 558, 113 direction of Exchange street. The commit- N. E. 355; Lowry v. Sheffield Coal Co., Ltd. tee of arbitration found that the distance to (1907) 1 B. W. C. C. 1; McKee v. Great reach Exchange street from the icehouse by Northern Ry. Co. (1908) 1 B. W O. C. 165; this route was circuitous, and very much far. Gane v. Norton Hill Colllery Co. (1909) 2 ther than by crossing the pond on the ice. B. W. C. C. 42; Ewald v. Chicago & NorthThe committee also found that “the way out western Ry. Co., 70 Wis. 420, 36 N. W. 12, by the driveway to Chestnut street and 591, 5 Am. St. Rep. 178. thence to Pleasant street” was another way

The case at bar is clearly distinguishable which he could have taken. The committee from Fumicello's Case, 219 Mass. 488, 107 further found that:

N. E. 349. In that case the employé was "The employé followed the reasonable and cus- killed upon a railroad track which was not tomary way of leaving his employer's premises. a part of the premises of the employer. He and Douglass crossed this way, regularly It follows that the insurer's requests one, and other employés who lived on his street, two and three could not have been given. which lies in the same direction as Exchange street, used this way of leaving the premises.

Decree affirmed. It appears that the path around the pond was not used in winter.

• The employé was on his employer's premises when he met his

(225 Mass. 281) death and was leaving these premises by a DOWNEY v. BAY STATE ST. RY. CO. reasonable way.

* Here there was no other convenient way of going home.

(Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts. The pond was the premises of his employer un

Suffolk. Nov. 29, 1916.) der his employer's control. It was a result 1. STREET RAILROADS Own 83 INJURIES TO of the working operations of his employer that PERSONS ON STREETS MOTOB CARS LIhe met his death."

The report sets forth all the evidence ma Under St. 1909, c. 534, § 10, declaring that terial to the issues involved in the case. The duly licensed, no recovery can be had for an ac

no person shall operate a motor vehicle unless committee has found that the death of the cident resulting solely from the negligence of employé arose out of and in the course of the defendant street car company, unless plainhis employment. The Industrial Accident tiff's motor truck which came into collision with Board upon review, affirmed and adopted the defendant's car had been registered as provided. findings and decision of the committee.

[Ed. Note.-For other cases,_see Street Rail

roads, Cent. Dig. 88 179, 180; Dec. Dig. Om 83.] [1] While the employé's work for the day 2. LICENSES em 20–MOTOR VEHICLES—"OWNhad been finished and he was on his way home at the time of the fatal accident, still St. 1909, c. 534, 8.2, as amended by St. 1912, it is settled that an injury to a workman c. 400, § 1, provides that application for the reg. may arise out of and in the course of his em- istration of motor vehicles may be made by the ployment even if he is not actually working provided that registration should be effected by

owner thereof. Statutes prior to 1908 uniformly at the time of the injury. Von Ette's Case, I the owner or person in control thereof, the latter

wFor other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMRER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes

[ocr errors]



« PreviousContinue »