LONG, J. This appeal is taken by Henry P. McDonnell, John J. McDonnell, Nelson K. Riddle, and Patrick H. Monahan, four of the defendants, from a decree in a foreclosure case. The other four defendants in the bill are their respective wives. The bill prays: "And that the said above-named defendants herein pay to your orator any balance that shall remain due to your orator of the principal and interest of said note and indenture of mortgage, if the sale of said mortgaged premises as aforesaid fail to produce sufficient to pay the whole of said mortgage debt and the costs of this suit, and that in such case your orator have execution for the collection of such balance, and the costs thereon, according to the rules and practice of this court." The mortgage in suit was accompanied by a promissory note signed by all the defendants. This note is set out in the bill as follows: "$13,000.00. DETROIT, MICH., April 1, 1895. 'For value received, we severally and jointly promise to pay to the order of David W. Simons the principal sum of thirteen thousand dollars ($13,000.00) on or before the 20th day of January in the year nineteen hundred and two, without grace, with interest at the rate of six per cent. per annum from January 20, 1895, payable on the 20th day of July next and semi-annually thereafter until the whole of said principal sum is paid,” etc. The decree of sale recites that: "There is due to the complainant at this date upon the note and mortgage mentioned and set forth in the bill of complaint, for principal and interest, the sum of fifteen thousand seven hundred and six dollars and fifty-six cents; and that the said defendants, Henry P. McDonnell, John J. McDonnell, Nelson K. Riddle, and Patrick H. Monahan, are personally liable for the payment thereof," etc. It is contended that the decree finds that the four defendants who bring this appeal are personally liable for the whole amount of the mortgage debt, and therefore for any unpaid balance remaining after the sale of the property to satisfy the mortgage. It is therefore contended: 1. That, under the pleadings, the court had no jurisdiction to enter a personal decree at any time. 2. That the personal liability of the defendants could not be established, at any rate, in the original decree of foreclosure and sale. 3. That, inasmuch as the complainant asked the court to decree that all the defendants pay any balance remaining unpaid upon the sale, the court had no power to enter a decree against any number of the defendants less than all. We think the averments of the bill as above set out are sufficient to warrant the decree made. The defendants were the mortgagors. The note was signed by all of them, and accompanied the mortgage. The decree fixed the amount due on the note and mortgage. The decree necessarily involved the determination of the amount due. Haldane v. Sweet, 58 Mich. 431. This the court found to be, by the decree, $15,706.56. The defendants had the right in this proceeding to show that the amount was less, or that there was no personal liability on their part to pay it. These questions are always open in the foreclosure proceedings. Ransom v. Sutherland, 46 Mich. 492; Wallace v. Field, 56 Mich. 3. Counsel for defendants cite section 6702, 2 How. Stat., and claim that under it the court had no power to establish the liability for any balance until on the coming in of the report of sale, and that the court had no authority to enter a decree for deficiency until it should be ascertained that there would be a deficiency. The decree does not direct the payment of any unpaid balance after sale. It simply determines the amount due from the mortgagors on the note and mortgage, and that the defendants named are personally liable for the amount. It is true that in Vaughan v. Black, 63 Mich. 215, it was held that the personal liability of a party collaterally liable for the payment of a debt secured by a mortgage on real estate could not be absolutely fixed in the original decree of foreclosure. But that is not this case. Here the parties were the mortgagors, and had made the note accompanying the mortgage. 120 624 123 376 120 624 f147 627 It appears that the wives of the parties appealing had no rights in the property, other than dower, and that they signed the mortgage for the purpose of waiving their dower rights. The court found very properly that they were not liable on the note. It was the note of the husbands, and no personal decree could be rendered against the wives. The decree of the court below must be affirmed. The other Justices concurred. FRAZEE v. STOTT.1 MASTER AND SERVANT - LIABILITY FOR INJURY - NEGLIGENCE OF A mill owner who has furnished an employé with a safe place Error to Wayne; Carpenter, J. Submitted April 20, 1899. Decided July 11, 1899. Case by Clarence A. Frazee against David Stott for personal injuries. From a judgment for defendant on verdict directed by the court, plaintiff brings error. Affirmed. Defendant owns a flouring mill in the city of Detroit, and is the general manager of his business. Upon the 1 Rehearing denied September 27, 1899. floor of the mill are 28 roller machines, called "roller mills," of which one is used for grinding feed and the others for grinding flour. The feed mill is composed of two sets of rollers, one above the other, the upper set of rollers being nearer the front of the mill than the other, which is situated about eight inches below. Two sideboards, slanting inwards, one in front and the other in the rear of the upper set of rollers, and extending below it, were placed so as to carry the feed from the upper set of rollers to the lower. The rollers were made of steel, with corrugated surfaces. These corrugations became dull from use, and about every 10 days it became necessary to remove the rollers for sharpening, and replace them by others. An eccentric rod extended in front of the rollers, and between them. Plaintiff had been employed for five years in flouring mills, three of which had been in roller mills. When plaintiff was employed, the defendant's foreman, Mr. Hargraves, instructed him fully as to the operation of the machine, and he fully understood its mechanism and operation. It required his whole time to run the mill. Plaintiff gave evidence tending to show that the lower edge of the front guideboard was at first above the eccentric rod, leaving a sufficient space between the two for him to insert his hand. One of his duties was to insert his hand to catch the feed as it came from the upper rolls, to see whether the mill was doing proper work. This he was required to do many times daily. This was done by placing the ends of his fingers against the guideboard, and extending his hand under the lower edge a sufficient distance to catch some feed for examination. He had been in the employ of the defendant three weeks doing this work before the accident complained of. During this time the rollers had been twice exchanged. The mill was housed in with wood, and, in order to examine the feed, a door was opened in front of the guideboard. Plaintiff also gave evidence tending to show that, when the rollers were first changed, a small iron rod had been inserted above the eccentric rod for the purpose of strengthening 120 MICH.-40. the woodwork; that the guideboard was at that time lowered so as to rest on that rod, but still leaving room for the insertion of his hand above the eccentric rod; that the rollers had been exchanged the day before the accident; that the front guideboard was then placed so as to rest upon the eccentric rod; that he placed his hand in the usual manner against the guideboard, moved it down and under, and caught his hand between the lower rollers, by means of which all the fingers of that hand were crushed off. The foreman of these mills instructed two other employés, named Enrich and Shafer, to take out the dull rollers and put in the sharp ones. They were chosen for this work because they were more experienced in the work than was the plaintiff, who had nothing to do with making the exchange, and was placed at other work about the mill while the exchange was being made. Enrich and Shafer were engaged in the same room in running the flour mills, whose sets of rollers were not placed one above the other. The negligence alleged is in lowering the guideboard to the eccentric rod, so that, in catching the feed for examination, it brought his hand in dangerous proximity to the lower set of rollers. The change in the guideboard is contested by the defendant, and so is the time of the change of rollers before the accident. The court directed a verdict for the defendant on the ground that Enrich and Shafer were fellow-servants, and, if they were negligent, their negligence is not chargeable to the defendant. A motion for a new trial was made, upon which the learned circuit judge, after a careful examination of the authorities, adhered to his former ruling, and filed an able opinion, giving his reasons. S. E. Engle, for appellant. Keena & Lightner, for appellee. GRANT, C. J. (after stating the facts). It appears conceded that plaintiff and Enrich and Shafer were ordinarily fellow-servants, but it is argued that they were not |