Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 4.djvu/512

498 FJSDEBAIi ËEFOBTEB. �Upon this question I entertain no doubt. The contract with the stevedores, Walsh Brothers, was to load and unload the cargoes of this and other steamers belonging to the defendant at so much per ton, and, as is said in the plaintiff's brief, "the injury complained of did not resuit directly from any- thing which the contractor was bound by his contract to do." If defendant had been under a duty to protect this hatchway by gratings or otherwise, or if the stevedore had been employed or directed by the defendant to cover this hatchway, the case would have been different; but, in the absence of any such duty deyolving upon the defendant, or of any evidence of sueh enaployment of the stevedore by the defendant, it is quite clear that the defendant's liability bas not been established. • The case cornes within the rule declared in a case greatly relied on by the plaintiff, where it is said: "If an independent con- tractor is employed to io a lawful act, and in the course of the work commits some casual act of negligence, the employer is not answerable." Pickard v. Smith, 10 Common Bench, N. S. 470, �The motion to set aside the verdict must be denied. ���CooPEB Manuf'g Co. V. Ferguson, �{Oircuit Cowrt, D. Colorado. , 1880.) �L FoRBiGN CoEPORATios — Capacitt TO Makb Contbaots— Statutb OB" �COLOBADO. �This action was upon a contract for the manufacture and delivery of certain machinery. Plaintiff is a corporation, organized under the laws of Ohio. The statute of Colorado provides that "foreign corporations" shall, before they are authorized to do any business in this state, file in the office of the secretary a certain certificate. The defendant pleaded that the contract declared upon was entered into within the state of Colorado, and that the plaintiff had never eomplied with the statute. It did not appear that plaintiff had engaged ����