ii ~-=¤   mm. mwrme.
scope of his employment at the direction. of a co-employe. having authority ovorrhim,
Gilmore v. Railway C0.,18 Fed. Rep. 866. So, also, where a servant is injured through
the negligence of an employe in providing suitable materialor appliances the latter be=
ing authorized or required y his employment to discharge this uty. Id. ; Kruger v.
Railway Co., (Ind.) 11 N. E. Rep. 957; Benzing v. Steinway (N. Y.) 5 N. E. Rep. 449.
And the broad principle is laid down that where aservant is invested with control or
superior authority over another employe, and injury is incurred by the latter, through
the negligent exercise of the authority so conferred, the master 1S liable. Thomgnson
v. Railway Co., 14 Fed. Rep. 564· Gravelle v. Railway Co., 10 Fed. Rep. 711; Ro s v.
Railway o., 8 Fed. Rep.544, 5 Rup. Ct.   184; Railway Co. v. Peregoy (Kan.) 14
Pac. Rep. 7; Mason v. achlne—Works 28 Fe . Rep. 228. A station agent 1B held not to
be a fellow-servant of a carpenter employed bythe railroad company in a department
wholly disconnected from t at in which the agent is working. , Palmer v. Railway Co.,
(Idaho,) 13 Pac. Rep. 425. And a common hand engaged in the business of relaying a
track under the control of a foreman is not in the same employment within the sense
‘ of the rule as one who is managing aswitch-engine which is used in moving cars and
‘ not engaged in the work of relaying said track. Garrahy v. Railroad Co., 25 Fed. Rep;
, 258. t common law, where the master delegates to any officer, servant, or agent, big
or low the performance of any duty which really belongs to the master himself, the
latter is not relieved from liability for the negligent acts of such servant. Railroad
Co. v. Fox (Kan.) 3 Pac. Rep. 320; Railroad Co. v. Moore, (Kan.) 1 Pac. Rep;644. So
it is held, directly contrary to the decision in the case of Smith v. Potter. supra that
an ins ector of cars is not a fellow-servant of a brakeman, Braun v. Railroad Co.,
(Iowa?) 6 N. W. Rep. 5. And when a railroad company confersauthority upon one of
its employes to take charge and control of a gang of men. in carrying on some particu-
_lar branc of its business, such servant, in governing and directing the movements of
the men under his charge with respect to thatbranc of its business, is a representa-
tive of the compeny, an not a fellow-servantof the men under. his control. Railway
Co. v. Hawk, ( .) 12 N. E. Rep. 253; Railway Co. v. Lundstrum (Neb.) 20 N. ·W._ Rep.
198. See, also, upon the point as to who are fellow-servants Vian Wickle v. Railway
Co., 82 Fed. Rep. 278; Theleman v. Moeller, (Iowa,) 84 N. W. Rep. 765; Railroad Co. m
De Armond (Tenn.) 5 S. W. Rep. 600; Railroad C0. v. Norment, (Va.) 4 S. E. Rep. 211;
Torians v. Railroad Co. Id; 339; Ewald v. Railway Co;, (Wis.) 36N. W. Rep; 12; Eas-
ton v. Railway Co.,132 Fed. Rep. S93; Naylor v. Railroad Co., 33 Fed. Rep. 801.
R Cuuizcmm. v. Honson. p , ‘
(Oircuit Court, E.   Miasowrt', E. D. February 24, 1888.) V
. C¤n·rmsr—N.u·mz.s or Esnrm Dcumo COVERTURE—EXECUTION—EXEMPTIONE,
M _ .. Under Rev. St. Mo. § 3295, exempting from levy of execution, during cov-
· erture, the interest of the husband in any right of the wife in any real estate
» acquired by her,befo1·e..o1· after marriage. or his sole debt, the husband’s
, estate, by the curtesy; is exempt, during coverture, from such sale, and the
c purchaser cannot maintain an action of ejectment for suchiuterest after the
» oath of the wife. ‘ ..
  At   Suit in ejectment. _ R ‘··i
P. Taylor Bryan and M W. Huj forplaintiif.
i A. J. P. Garosche, for defendant ‘ o " N V ·
  iTn,1vnn, J., (orally.) This is a suit in ejectment. The landsinvolvecl
in·zthe· controversy belonged to Mrs. Marie C. Chambers, wife of B.  
Dllambers, in her lifegtiniey Issue capableof inheriting was born of that
marriage in the year 1874, by virtue of which fact the husband, B. M.
Chambers, became entitledltoan estate: as‘_te’nant by curtesy in the lands.
in question. Thereafter, the lands were levied upon and sold under and. -