Hinton Bros. Lumber Co. v. Polk
Decision Date | 25 February 1918 |
Docket Number | 19915 |
Citation | 78 So. 179,117 Miss. 300 |
Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
Parties | HINTON BROS. LUMBER CO. v. POLK |
APPEAL from the circuit court of Lamar county, HON. A. E WEATHERSBY, Judge.
Suit by J. R. Polk against the Hinton Bros. Lumber Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.
Appellant is a corporation engaged in the manufacture of lumber, and appellee was one of its employees, who was injured, as he alleges, because of appellant's negligence. In connection with appellant's other machinery it operates a planing mill in which there are six planing machines for the dressing of lumber after it has been sawed. These machines are placed in a line with and at a distance of ten to fifteen feet from each other. Behind these machines and running at right angles therewith is a "lumber run," about ten feet wide consisting of three two-inch "turtle back" steel chains. These chains run either in grooves or on top of the floor, which does not clearly appear from the evidence, and move slowly forward and convey the lumber, after it comes from the planers, to the grader pit, where it is assorted and then conveyed to other portions of the building. The floor, between each of these planing machines and the first chain, and then continuing across the lumber run between each of the chains, as covered with a strip of sheet iron or tin twenty-four inches wide. This tin or sheet iron slopes on each side of the chains, so as to bring the ends thereof next to the chain about on a level therewith. There was an open space between each planer and the lumber run, and also on the side of the lumber run opposite the planers, on which employees could stand while keeping the lumber from becoming tangled when being conveyed by the lumber run. The lumber, as it came from the planing machines, was shoved across the lumber run; and this tin or sheet iron was placed there for the purpose of enabling this to be accomplished without the lumber being obstructed by the chains, but in the cross-examination of appellant's foreman appear the following questions and answers:
Judgment reversed.
Salter & Hathorn and Welch & Welch, for appellant.
Hall & Hall and J. W. Cassedy, for appellee.
OPINION
(After...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Forbus v. Cobb Bros. Const. Co.
... ... 563; Hammontree v. Cobb ... Bros. Constr. Co., 168 Miss. 844, 152 So. 281; ... Hinton Bros. Lbr. Co. v. Polk, 117 Miss. 300, 78 So ... 179; McKinnon v. Braddock, 139 Miss. 424, 104 ... ...
-
Virginia-Carolina Chemical Co. v. Jefferson
... ... Cumberland Tel. Co. v. Cosnahan, 105 Miss. 615, 62 ... So. 824; Lumber Co. v. Miles, 135 Miss. 146, 99 So ... 759; International Shipbuilding ... Paving Company v. Hollis, 160 Miss. 79, 133 So. 229; ... Hinton Bros. Lumber Company v. Polk, 117 Miss. 300, ... 78 So. 179; Y. & M. V ... ...
-
Curry & Turner Const. Co., Inc. v. Bryan
... ... 776; Van Scoter v. Megginson, 144 Miss. 510, 110 ... So. 247; Hinton Bros. Lbr. Co. v. Polk, 117 Miss. 300, 78 So ... Appellee ... ...
-
Mississippi Power & Light Co. v. Smith
... ... 550; Crowley v. Mills, 148 Mass. 230; ... Ash v. Verlinden Bros., 154 Penn. State 249; ... Cirriac v. Company, 151 Mass. 156; ... 827; Cybur Lbr. Co. v. Rickart, 79 So ... 235, 118 Miss. 401; Hinton Bros. Lbr. Co. v. Polk, 117 Miss ... 300, 78 So. 179 ... The ... ...