1. Trial — Direction of Verdict — Questions of Negligence.

While questions of negligence are ordinarily for the jury in federal courts, a case may be withdrawn from the jury and a verdict directed for plaintiff or defendant, as may be proper, where there is no conflict in the evidence, or where it is so conclusive in its character that the court, in the exercise of its sound judicial discretion, would be obliged to set aside a verdict rendered in opposition to such evidence.

[Ed. Note. — For eases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 46, Trial, §§ 376-395; vol. 37, Negligence, §§ 277-286.]

2. Master and Servant — Temporary Suspension of Relation — Departure by Servant from Service of Master.

Plaintiff’s intestate, who was a bridge foreman on defendant’s railroad, living at the time in an outfit car on a siding, went with his family on a velocipede car one afternoon to a spur track some 2% miles distant, near which his father-in-law resided. The car was returned, and in the evening about 7 o’clock some of the men by his direction came after him with a hand car. He was then at his father-in-law’s house, where he had been visiting since 5 o’clock, by which time his business for the defendant at the spur, if any, had been finished. About 8:30 he started back with the men, having no light on the car, and while on the way was killed in a collision with a meeting special train. Held, that at the time he was engaged on his own private affairs, and no relation of master and servant existed between him and defendant which brought him within the terms of a state statute making railroad companies liable for injuries to their employés caused by negligence of their fellow servants.

[Ed. Note. — For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 34, Master and Servant, §§ 144-156.

Injuries to servant while not on duty, see notes to Ellsworth v. Metheney, 44 O. O. A. 489.]

3. Railroads — Injury to Person on Track — Contributory Negligence.

A bridge foreman on a railroad, familiar with the operation of trains thereon, and knoiving that special trains were liable to run at any time, who, while not in the performance of any duty for the company, but in the pursuit of his own affairs, went upon the track at night on a hand car showing no light and was killed in a collision with a special train at a distance from any crossing, was guilty of contributory negligence, and there can be no recovery from the company for his death, even conceding that the train was negligently operated, where such negligence was not willful nor wanton, and the presence of the hand car approaching on the track was not known to the engineer until the collision occurred.