Appellant was an employe of a construction company, which had purchased from respondent a concrete mixer, and being unfamiliar with the operation thereof, the construction company employed a general employe of the machinery company to operate the mixer on the road work upon which it was engaged, until one of its own employes should become familiar with its operation; and while this employe of the machinery company was operating the machine under the direction of the foreman of the construction company, appellant was injured. Held, that at the time of the accident, the operator of the mixer was pro hac vice a fellow employe of appellant, subject to the direction and control of appellant's employer, and for the time being the relation of master and servant existed between the operator of the mixer and the construction company.
PER CURIAM.
The judgment under review herein should be affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the opinion delivered by Circuit Court Judge Lawrence in the Supreme Court.
For affirmance — THE CHANCELLOR, CHIEF JUSTICE, TRENCHARD, LLOYD, CASE, BODINE, DONGES, PERSKIE, HETFIELD, DEAR, WELLS, WOLFSKEIL, RAFFERTY, COLE, JJ. 14.
For reversal — PARKER, HEHER, JJ. 2.