Mattley v. Giesler (C. C. A.).. 738 .1021 438 133 771 Mississippi River Power Co., Hagerla v. Meader Furniture Co., Commercial Nat. Phelps Lumber Co. v. McDonough Mfg. Co. (C. C. A.).. Philadelphia Pickling Co. v. United States (C. C. A.). Patterson v. United States (C. C. A.).. 208 Peet, Elliott v. (C. C. A.). 434 Pennsylvania Steel Co. v. New York City R. Co. (D. C.)... 296 Pennsylvania Steel Co. v. New York City. R. Co. (D. C.)... 607 Phelps Lumber Co. v. McDonough Mfg. Co. (C. C. A.).. 445 449 150 Philadelphia & G. S. S. Co. v. McCauldin (C. C. A.).. 735 (D. C.)... 776 Mississippi Valley Fuel Co. v. Watson Coal Co. (C. C. A.)... Phoenix Knitting Works v. Rich, two cases (C. C. A.). .1022 122 Mitchell, In re (D. C.). 806 Mitchell, Hitchman Coal & Coke Co. v. (D. Platte Valley Cattle Co. v. BossermanGates Live Stock & Loan Co. (C. C. A.) 692 Podolin, In re (D. C.)... .1014 C.) 512 Mitsui v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. (C. C. A.). 26 Pooler v. Hyne, two cases (C. C. A.). Portland Gold Min. Co., Daniels v. (C. C. A.) 194 637. Monash-Younker Co., Consolidated Engineering Co. v. (C. C. A.).. Morss, Buchser v. (C. C. A.). Moss v. Gulf Compress Co. (C. C. A.).. 657 Prentis, United States v. (C. C. A.).. Portsmouth, The (C. C. A.). .1021 Pozo y Mascos, Wilson Cypress Co. v. (C. C. A.)... 742 65 799 263 113 ARGUED AND DETERMINED IN THE UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEALS THE DISTRICT COURTS, AND THE COMMERCE COURT CASEY V. BARBER ASPHALT PAVING CO. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. No. 2,161. February 3, 1913.) MASTER AND Servant (§ 121′′)—INJURIES TO SERVANT-EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACT-SAFEGUARDING MACHINERY-"FACTORY”—“MILL.” Machinery consisting of a mixer, grinder, heater, rolls, and elevators for hoisting materials, all operated by a large gasoline engine, and assembled on a flat car used in preparing the machinery for street paving, and moved from place to place on ordinary railroad tracks according to exigencies of defendant's paving business, was a "factory" or "mill" within Wash. Factory Act March 6, 1905 (Laws 1905, c. 84), as amended by Wash. Laws 1907 (Laws 1907, c. 205), requiring every person, firm, or corporation operating a factory, mill, or workshop where machinery is used to provide safeguards for all shafting, gears, etc.; the word "factory" being deemed to include any premises where steam, water, or other mechanical power is used in the aid of any manufacturing process without reference to whether it is inclosed in a building, the word "mill" being also defined as a common name for various machines which produce a manufactured product, or change the form of raw material by continuous repetition of some action, etc. [Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Master and Servant, Cent. Dig. §§ 228-231; Dec. Dig. § 121.* For other definitions, see Words and Phrases, vol. 3, pp. 2642, 2643; vol. 5, pp. 4506-4508.] In Error to the District Court of the United States for the Southern Division of the Eastern District of Washington; Frank H. Rudkin, Judge. Action by E. L. Casey against the Barber Asphalt Paving Company. A judgment (192 Fed. 432) for defendant non obstante was entered, and plaintiff brings error. Reversed and remanded, leaving judgment for plaintiff on the verdict in full force. The plaintiff in error brought this action in the court below to recover damages for personal injuries, alleging in his complaint, among other things, that on the 6th day of August, 1909, the defendant to the action was operating a certain mill, factory, and workshop in the city of Walla Walla, Wash., in the mixing, grinding, and manufacturing of asphalt paving, the plaintiff being one of its employés; that prior to and at the time mentioned the de⚫For other cases see same topic & § NUMBER in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep'r Indexes 202 F.-1 |