In  Georgia,  where  the  common-law  rule  prevails  as  to  all  em-
ployees except  railroad  companies  (Code,  sects.  2202,  2083,  3033,
3036),  it  has  been  denied  that  a  servant  of  a  receiver  of  a  rail-
road can  hold  such  receiver  liable  for  injuries  resulting  from  the
negligence  of  a  fellow-servant.  The  ground  was  taken  that  the
employees  of  receivers  were  not  within  tlie  words  of  the  Code,
and  that  "  to  extend  those  words  by  construction,  so  as  to  subject
the  company's  assets  to  pay  damages  for  the  carelessness  or  mis-
conduct of  men  whom  neither  the  officers  nor  agents  of  the  com-
pany had  any  part  in  selecting,  would  be  attended  with  difficulties
both  technical  and  practical."  ^

1  Combs  V.  Smith,  Receiver  (1883),  78  481  ;  Thurman  v.  Cherokee  R.  Co.  (1876),

Mo.  32;  s.  c.   20  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  R.  Cas.  56  Ga.  376.     These  cases  have  been  fol-

209.     The  distinction  taken  by  the  New  lowed  by  a  federal  court  sitting  in  Georgia.
York  court  was  not  noticed,  and  there  is  Central  Trust  Co.  v.  East  Tennessee,  Va.  &

nothing  in  the  report  to  show  that  it  was  Ga.  Ry.  Co.  (1888),  69  Fed.  Rep.  353.    See

recognized.     In   so   far  as   the  case   may  also  Central  Trust  Co.  v.  East  Tennessee,

have    been    intended    to    lay   down    any  Va.  &  Ga.  Ry.  Co.  (Mitchell,  Intervener),

wider  doctrine,  it  is  declared  in  the  New  (1895),   69  Fed.  Rep.  357,  and  Baltimore

York  case  just  cited  to  be  opposed  to  the  Trust  &  Guaranty  Co.  v.  Atlanta  Traction

general  current  of  the  authorities.  Co.  (Bennett,  Intervener),  (1895),  69  Fed.
