
    De Ross Dailey, Respondent, v. Daniel H. Stoll, Appellant.
   Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. All concurred, except McLennan, P. J., and Foote, J., who dissented upon the grounds: First, that service Of notice under the Employers’ Liability Act was not' waived,- and, second, that if the bolt was improperly suspended, it Was a detail of the work for which defendant was not liable. 
      
       See Labor Law (Consol. Laws, chap. 31; Laws of 1909, chap. 36), § 201, as amd, by Laws of 1910,' chap. 352.— [Rkp, •
     