An action cannot be maintained under sec tion 1 of the above act where the complain ant neither alleges nor pleads facts showing that defendant is a common carrier ; Shade v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 206 Fed. 353 (D. C., W. D. Wash.). Where a train of cars was hauled by a switch engine over certain tracks and switches from one part of the railroad yard to another, that they might be classi fied, inspected, and assembled, they were not engaged in interstate commerce; U. S. v. R. Co., 205 Fed. 428 (D. C., W. D. N. Y.). A workman, killed while employed by a rail road company engaged in interstate com merce in repairing a bridge on a line over which such commerce was carried on, was held to be employed in interstate commerce; Thomson v. R. Co., 205 Fed. 203.
A locomotive fireman in the employment of an interstate railroad, who was ordered to report at a station to be transported with others to another station to relieve the crew of an interstate train, and who, when ap proaching the station over a crossing, was struck and killed through the negligence of other servants of the company also operat ing an interstate train, was within the act; Lamphere v. Oregon R. & Nay. Co., 196 Fed. 336, 116 C. C. A. 156 (9th Cir.). So of one injured when employed in repair shops con nected with an interstate track, in repairing a. car used indiscriminately in both inter state and intrastate commerce, but which was at the time engaged in interstate com merce; Northern Pac. R. Co. v. Maerkl, 198 Fed. 1, 117 C. C. A. 237 (9th Cir.). The judg ment in the Pedersen Case, supra, will doubtless affect some of these decisions in lower courts.
The following cases were held not within act : Bennett v. R. Co., 197 Fed. 578 (D. C., E. D. Pa.), where an employee was killed while riding to his home by permission on one of the company's trains, but who was not at the time, and, so far as appeared, had not just previously been, employed in interstate commerce, was not within the act ; Heimbach v. R. Co., 197 Fed. 579 (Ek C., E. D. Pa.) ; where an employee, who was in jured while repairing a car of another com pany which had reached the end of its run, been unloaded, and was lying at a station awaiting orders, was not within the act ; Feaster v. R. Co., 197 Fed. 580 (D. C., E. D. Pa.) ; and where an extra conductor, direct ed, on reporting for work, to ride to another point within the same state for service on a work train, and who was injured while pro ceeding to his train, was not at the time em ployed in interstate commerce ; Taylor v.
So. R. Co., 178 Fed. 380 (C. C., N. D. Ga.), where a member of a bridge gang who was injured while repairing a bridge forming a most necessary part of the track of a rail road used for both interstate and intrastate commerce, was not within the act.
A fireman on a switch engine which was ordinarily employed in interstate commerce, though mingled with intrastate commerce, was held engaged IL interstate commerce ; Behrens v. R. Co., 192 Fed. 581 (D. C., E. D. La.). Where a railroad brakeman was in jured while engaged in making a flying switch to set out a car transported wholly in intrastate traffic, though it was part of a train carrying both interstate and intrastate freight, his injury did not occur while en gaged in interstate commerce ; Van Brim flier v. Ry. Co., 190 Fed. 394 (C. C., E. D. Tex.). The causal negligence of a co-em ployee be that of one not engaged in interstate commerce ; In re Second Employ ers' Liability Cases, 223 U. S. 1, 32' Sup. Ct. 169, 56 L. Ed. 327, 38 L. R. A. (N. S.) 44.
A Workman's Compensation, •Act was pass ed in England in 1897. It provides that in certain trades and works the employer shall be liable to compensate any workman injur ed by an accident in the course of his em ployment, whether the employer or any of his subordinates had been guilty of negli gence or had committed any breach of duty or not. This act was repealed in 1906, by an act which provides for compensation for injury from any accident in the course of employment unless attributable to the seri ous or willful misconduct of the workman, but this exception does not extend to injury resulting in death or serious and permanent disablement. Compensation can also be claimed by one who has suffered from cer tain specified "industrial diseases"; on the event of his death, his dependants may claim. The utmost amount recoverable is one pound a week during total incapacity to work or three hundred pounds in case of death. Contributory negligence is no de fence, nor the voluntary assumption of a known risk, nor the negligence of a fellow servant. Where a principal has engaged a contractor for the work, the act makes the principal liable for compensation although there is no direct relation between him and the injured workman.