MISSOURI PAC. RY.
CO.
V.TEXAS
&
P. RY. CO.
701
MISSOURI PAC. Ry. CO. V. TEXAS & P. Ry. CO., BRADFORD, (Intervenor. I) (Oircuit Vowt, E. D. Louiaiana. January 2, 1888.) RAILROAD COMPANIES-RECEIVER-INJURIES TO EMPLOYES-PAYMENT OF WAGES.
A switchman claimed from the receivers of defendant company compensation for injuries sustained in the line of his duty. The master reported, exonerating the company from liability for negligence. Held, that it was just and good policy for the company to pay wages during recovery from the injuries so received.
J. S. Bradford, as intervenor, filed a claim against the receivers ofthe Texas & PaQific Railway Company, for damages for injuries sustained by him while a. switchman in the' employ of that railway. The master, while exonerating the receivers,allowed the claimant his wages at $2.50 a day for the 64 days he was laid up from his injuries. The receivers excepted to the master's report, on the ground that they were free from blame. 'fhe following is the order of the court in the Freundlich Case, referred to in the opinion: .. Whereas it appears to the court, from evidence on file in this cause, that one S. Freundlich. employed by the receivers in this cause in operating the Texas & Pacific Railway property, while in the discharge of his duty as a earpenter in tbe car department. at Big Springs, Texas. met with an accident, without any negligence on. his part, whereby his left eye was struck with an iron sliyer. resultmg. after great pain and suffering. in ihe total loss of the eye. and incapacitating said FreuIidlich from work from June 9,1886, toSElptember. 5, 1886; and whereas the receivers in this cause doubt their authority to pay 'wages to said Freundlich during the time he was so as aforesaid disabled by reason of said accident, and as it appears to the court that not only equity and good'conscience justify. but good railway management. requires"tllat in such cases wages be not stopped during temporary sickness resultingfrOI!l accidents in the line of duty, unaccompaand nied with contributory negligElnc6. it is ordered and adjudged that said ers are authorized and directed to pay to said S. Freundlich full wages'·fi'om June 9; 1886. to September 5, 1886. the same as if during that period he had worked at his regular employment. prOVided the same shall not exceed one hundred dollars per month."
In Equity.
Intervening petition.
W. W. Howe, for receivers. PARDEE, J., (orally.) In this case, which is one where the intervenor, being an employe of the receh:ers, claims compensation for damages received in the line of his duty , the master reports exonerating the receivers from liability for negligence, and yet allowing the intervenor payment of wages during the time he was laid up from his injuries. The evidence and report seem to bein:line with the ClUJeoj Freundlich, and with .9thers court has it just and gqod policy for the receivers, tQ'pay.}Vages during froll} injuries received in the line of lRepQrted by. Charles B.Sta1rord, Esq., of the New Orleans Bar.
702
FEDERAL'REPORTER.
duty, when undue carelessness of the employe did not contribute to the (injury. . . .' , . ,,' ',' " . The exceptions are overruled, and an order will be entered confirming the report. ' ,' .
at ".
SOUTHERN TEL.
Co.
al.
FARMERS'L. 1'0.' . , .
& T. Co. "
'V. SAME.
(Circuit Oourt, E. D. nrg£nia. December 18,1887.) ,. ·
ATTOBNlllY'- ANt> CLIENT-:-LIEN FOR S'IlinvIOB8.-PURetrABE PENDENTB LITH.
, '[i'
In a suit by' bondholders to foraclo.se a mortgage of the corporate property sl)d franchises, appeared, and contested the creditors' right to proceed, and took IMplJ' du'ring,the progress of the (lause,lnvolvlng labOr and' responsibility on their counsel. Subsequently. duriilg,theprogres8 ol the litigation, the!!!! sold their allowed ,sfee.payable out of the bonds. "On petition byt¥eir counsel dividend wliich wouldg() to these bonds, held, that they had a lien upon such di vidend, and that the purchasers of the bonds pendente lit/J took subject to this lien.
,to, Master's Eeport. . ofCarringtoli'sexecutor and W. w. I:lenry to lien for ·attorney'sJfees against the dividends on certain bonds formerly owned by their clienfs,which dividends WElte a fund in court., The suit in which the services were rendered was ill which Mahone, a hondholder, was plaintiff, and the Southern Telegraph Company, defendant; the petition I alleging tbatdefendant was seekingtQ wind it up. In this suit the Farmers'Loan & Trust Company filed a croSs-bill to foreclose its mortgage. A receiver wasapl>ointed, who, under authority of the court, entered into a traffic arrangement with the Mutual UJiion Telegraph ComAt stage of theproceediogs, petitioner's clients, bondholders of the Telegraph Company, came in and. attacked, unsuccessfully, the regularity of the proceedings. After ·abandoning an appeal they sold their bonds for value in the New York market. W. W. Henry, for himself and Carrington's executor. An attorney has an eqUitable lien on his client's papers. and the judgment l>btained for him, for aU his SerViC(l1l in the case (In re Pasohal, 10 Wall. 493: Railroad 00., 93 U. S. 354, 355; Wyliev.Ooa:e, 15 How. 519, 520;) and that. whether the amount of his compensation;beagreed upon,ordepends on a quantum meruit. (Renick v. LUdington, 16 W. Va. 378.) The sale of .the bondS ,operated as an equitableassignment of the decree establishing them, the purlJllQ.l'!er!l took them subjt.ctto all whether they had notice of them orij.ot.J'ewton,v. Pike. J3,Ark.193; Renick Y. Ludington. 8l{-pl'a. 'Thosebuyj:ni nf}gotiable Securities. from Iltigants. )vitl;l actual notice of the . suit, must abIde the result of thelitigati6n. . Scotlo/nd Oo;V. Hill,1l2 U. B. 185.5 Sup. :Ct. Rep, 93. 'The assignment 'of the bonds was the transfer ofnegotiable paper, after maturity (which occurred on the default in payment of interest as therein stipulated) and jUdgment, and the transferee acqUired noth·
On
