And  where  employees  are  engaged  in  A  receiver,  who  is  managing  a  rail-
elevating  coal  to  a  platform,  to  supply  way  under  the  direction  of  a  court,  is
the  engine,  their  duties  are  not  so  con-  within  this  section,  and  may  be  charged
Tiected  with  the  use  and  operation  of  the  and  a  recovery  obtained  against  him,  as
railroad,  as  that  one  of  them  could  re-  person  operating  a  railway.  Sloan  r.
cover  for  injuries  received  from  the  neg-  Central  Iowa  R.  Co.,  62  Iowa,  722;  s.  c,
ligence  of  the  other.  Stroble  v.  Chicago,  11  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  R.  Cas.  145.
etc.,  R.  Co.,  70  Iowa,  555;  s.  c,  28  Am.  The  fact  that  a  lessee  may  be  held
&  Eng.  R.  R.  Cas.  510;  and  see  Luce  v.  liable  under  this  section,  does  not  pre-
Chicago.  etc.,  R.  Co.,  67  Iowa,  75.  vent  recovery  against  the  owner  of  the

Injuries  to  an  employee  by  reason  of  road.    Bower  v,  Burlington,  etc.,  R.  Co.,

the  negligence  of  another,  both  engaged  42  Iowa,  546.
in  the  work  of  repairing  a  track,  such  in-  .The  running  of  special  trains  over  the

jury  not  resulting  from  the  operation  of  railway  by  a  construction  company,  in

the   railroad,  held,  not  within    the   pro-  constructing  it,   is  operating  a   railway,

vision  of  the  statute.   Matson  v.  Chicago,  within  the  meaning  of  the  statute.     Mc-

-etc,  R.  Co.,  68  Iowa,  22.  Knight  v.  Iowa  &  M.  R.   Co.,  43  Iowa,

An  employee  whose  duty  is  to  repair  406.
