§ 365.] THE LAW OF PRIVATE CORPORATIONS. [CHAP. VH. the servants of latent dangers connected with, their employ- ment, or concealed defects in the machinery used by them, when the corporation knows or is affected with notice of such dangers or defects; 1 fourthly, to protect the servant against the negligence or incompetence of those who as to the servants represent the corporation ; i. e., superior agents who have au- thority over them; 2 and, fifthly, to protect the servant from the negligent acts of other persons employed by the corporation in an employment different and distinct from that of the injured servant. 3 In Flike v. Boston and Albany R. R. Co., giving the opinion of the New York Court of Appeals, Chief Judge Church said : " The true rule, I apprehend, is to hold the corporation liable for negligence or want of proper care in respect to such acts and duties as it is required to perforin and discharge as master or principal, without regard to the rank or title of the agent intrusted with their performance. As to such acts the agent occupies the place of the corporation, and the latter should be deemed present and consequently liable for the manner in which they are performed." 4 And these acts and duties which the Drymala v. Thompson, 26 Minn. 40. Compare Murphy v. Boston and A. R. R. Co., 88 N. Y. 146; Bailey v. Rome, etc., R. R. Co., 139 N. Y. 302. If the employe continues to use ma- chinery which he knows to be defec- tive, and does not notify the corpo- ration, he is guilty of contributory negligence. Washington, etc., R. R. Co. v. McDade, 135 U. S. 554. 1 Keegan v. Western R. R. Co., 8 N. Y. 175; Williams v. Clough, 3 H. & N. 258; Paulmier v. Erie R. R. Co., 34 N. J. L. 151; Malone v. Hawley, 46 Cal. 409 ; Ryan v. Fowler, 24 N. Y. 410. See Baxter v. Roberts, 44 Cal. 187. Compare Wonder v. Bait, and Ohio R. R. Co., 32 Md. 411. 2 Hough v. Railway Co., 100 U. S. 213; Little Miami R. R. Co. v. Ste- vens, 20 Ohio, 415; Hoosier Stone Co. v. McCain, 133 Ind. 231; see Booth o. Boston, etc., R. R. Co., 73 350 N. Y. 38; Besel v. N. Y. C, etc., R. R. Co., 70 N. Y. 171, 173; Northern Pac. R. R. v. Peterson, 162 U. S. 346. Cf. Brabbits v. Chic, etc., Ry. Co., 38 Wis. 289; Bunnell v. St. Paul, etc., Ry. Co., 29 Minn. 305. 3 Nashville and C. R. R. Co. v. Car- roll, 6 Heisk. (Term.) 347; Chicago, B. and Q. R. R. Co. v. Gregory, 58 111. 272; Ryan v. Chicago, etc., Ry. Co., 60 111.171; Toledo, W. and W. Ry. Co. v. Moore, 77 111. 217; Anderson Brick Co. v. Sobkowick, 148 111. 573; Lewis v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 59 Mo. 495; Baird v. Pettit, 70 Pa. St. 477; Cooper v. Mullins, 30 Ga. 146. See Atchison, etc., R. R. Co. v. Moore, 29 Kans. 632; Chicago and N. W. Ry. Co. v. Morauda, 93 111. 302; Dobbin v. Richmond, etc., R. R. Co., 81 N. C. 446. Compare Tunney v. Midland Ry. Co., L. R. 1 C. P. 291.
- 53 N. Y. 549, 553.
