
    DAILEY, Respondent, v. STOLL, Appellant.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.
    October 16, 1912.)
    Action by De Ross Dailey against Daniel H. Stoll.
   PER CURIAM.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.

MCLENNAN, P. J., and FOOTE, J.,

dissent, upon the grounds, first, that service of notice under the Employer’s 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.  