323. No improvidence on the part of the legatee was intrastate, the fact that the car was being at-
tached to a train which had come from a point out-
side of the state, but which was bound to a point
within the state, does not establish that the decedent
was "engaged in interstate commerce" at the time of
the accident.-Ib.
and no inability to manage her business affairs, being
shown, the only intent of the testator appears to
have been to provide a safe investment by his ex-
ecutors of about one-half of the legatee's share, pay-
ing the income to her and the principal to her chil-
dren.-lb.
331. One employed as helper to the driver of a
delivery motor truck suffered an injury while riding
on the running board after giving up his seat-which
proved to be a place of safety-to some girls over-
taken enroute: HELD, that while he might have been
guilty of contributory negligence he was not at the
time outside "the course of his employment," and
RECORD therefore not barred from relief under the Compen-
sation Law-Siglin et al. v. Armour & Co., 156.
324. He used no technical language that would
prevent his daughter from assigning her income as
it accrued and there was nothing said by him, so
far as the will divulges, that would indicate that
he was averse to her prospective husband sharing
in the benefit of the accrued income.-Ib.
325. Frey's Estate, 25 YORK LEGAL
141, folowed.-lb.
326. Testator devised certain real estate to D for
life and directed that at her death it shall be sold
and the proceeds "equally divided among the sur-
viving devisees named in my will, or their legal
representatives." The auditor distributed the pro-
ceeds of sale of the real estate amongst the devisees
who survived the testator or their legal representa-
tives. On exceptions filed, the court below, WAN-
NER, P. J., held that the entire fund should have
ben awarded to the executors of F, who was the
only legatee who survived the life tenant. On ap
peal, HELD, to have been error, and that the Au-
ditor's report must be confirmed.-Fetrow's Estate,
No. 2, 39.
332. Under Section 409 of the Workman's Com-
pensation Act of June 2, 1915, P. L. 736, the rul-
ing of the compensation board in reversing the find-
ing of a referee and setting aside his award is final
when there is no question of law involved.-Mc-
Gurrin v. Hudson Coal Co., 166.
333. One who employs a minor contrary to the
Child's Labor Act of May 13, 1915, P. L. 286, is
liable in damages for injuries to such employe in
an action at law. Such an employe is not within
the Workmen's Compensation Act of 1915.-Ayres
et al. v. John Dunlap Co., 153.
334. The Workmen's Compensation Act of 1915,
referring as it does to parties legally competent to
327. The reasonable interpretation of the phrase contract, must not be construed as destructive of
"surviving devisees or their legal representatives,' statutes enacted for the protection of employes of
is to refer the word "surviving" to testator's death whom many are under legal disability, so that
and construe "or their legal representatives," as in the Compensation Act does not deprive such em-
tended to prevent the lapse of the shares of any leg-ployes of their rights at common law.-Ib.
atees who might die before the time for distribution
should arrive.--Ib.
328. This interpretation placed upon the phrase
avoids intestacy and secures equality of distribution
among the legatees.-lb.
335. A statutory demurrer under the Practice
Act of 1915 was overruled in an action for dam-
ages for injuries received by a minor while employed
contrary to the Child's Labor Act of May 13, 1915,
P. L. 286, in that such an employe was not with-
in the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation
WITNESSES, COMPETENCY OF, 74, 264-Act, which does not vest minors with power to con-
336. Where, on appeal from an award of the
Workmen's Compensation Board allowing compen-
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION, 250.
329. In an appeal from the Workmen's Com-sation to the widow of an employe killed in a coal
pensation Board where the only defense is that the mine, liability is sought to be avoided on the ground
Federal Employers' Liability Act governs the case that death was self-inflicted and intentional, the
to the exclusion of the State Compensation Act, the burden is on the employer, and when that burden
burden is upon the defendant to prove the facts nec- is not met, death will be presumed to have been
essary to show that the decedent was engaged in in- accidental, and the appeal should be dismissed.—
terstate commerce at the time of the accident.-Mc- Watson v. Pittsburg Coal Company, 73.
Laughlin v. Lehigh Valley Railroad Company, 162.
330. Where the last duty in which a railroad
yard employee was seen to be engaged prior to his
death was upon a car, the entire journey of which
337. The fact than an employe in a coal mine
was killed by the explosion of a lamp which he was
filling with explosive oil brought into the mine con-
trary to the Act of June 9, 1911, P. L. 756, which
makes such an act criminal and a misdemeanor, will pensation Act of 1915 to a claim for compensation
not relieve the employer from being compelled to on the ground that the employe was not actually en-
compensate decedent's dependent widow, as the gaged in the furtherance of the business or af-
Workmen's Compensation Act of June 2, 1915, P. fairs of his employe" in a case where, during an in-
L. 736, makes no distinction in the degrees of neg- determinate period of waiting for the arrival of
ligence, and, being remedial legislation, should be steel to be loaded on trucks, the employe was seen
broadly and liberally construed.-Ib.
to emerge from a nearby box car with his clothes
on fire, and he died as a result of the burning, in
338. An employe is within the Workmen's Com- that he had not been called off from work, and
pensation Act of 1915, and he or his dependents are in renewing his work, would not be called back.
entitled to compensation where an accident hap- He was there ready to work as soon as the mater-
pens while an employe is waiting for a tool or ma-ial was ready for his hand and during that period
terial, ready to renew his work as soon as that is was actually engaged in the duties of his employer.
furnished to him. He is at that time engaged in
the furtherance of his employer's business. The
time is uncertain. He must be always ready and
this act of waiting that there may be some person at
hand to continue the work at the proper time is a
part of the service which the employe is rendering
to his employer.—Dzikoska et al. v. Superior Steel
Co. et al., 67.
340. Under the Workmen's Compensation Act,
claimant, widow of decedent, who was not living
with her husband at the time of his death and was
not actually dependent upon him for support, but
was depending entirely upon her own earnings for
her support, is not entitled to compensation, and a
finding by the referee to this effect will not be dis-
It is no defense under the Workmen's Com- turbed on appeal.-Vargo v. Carnegie Steel Co., 95.
|