The Boveric

(after stating the facts as above).

The question here is whether the appellee was the fellow servant of the winchman through whose negligence the injury occurred. The rule is well settled, as stated by Cockburn, C. J., in Rourke v. White Moss Collier Co., 2 C.P.D. 209, that: “When' one person lends his servant to another for a particular employment, the servant, for anything done in that particular employment, must be dealt with as the servant of the man to whom he is lent, *276 although he remains the general servant of the person who lent him.”

But whether the servant of one master, when temporarily placed under the direction of another master as to some particular service to be rendered, becomes the fellow servant of the employés of the latter, under the varying circumstances of different cases, often gives rise to question. It is impossible to harmonize the conflicting-decisions or to evolve therefrom a test universally applicable. In Johnson v. Lindsay [1891] App.Cas. 371, Lord Watson, in defining the circumstances under which the servant of one may become the fellow servant with the servant of another, said: “In order to produce that result, the circumstances must be such…