EMPLOYMENT OF AN ENGINEEK 33 



The question whether the engineer has power to appoint a 

 substitute, and the powers of the engineer generally, must 

 depend upon the terms of his agreement with the employers. 



(As to the powers and duties of an assistant engineer, see 

 Chap. XVIII., post.) 



It would seem that, if there is some complete alteration in 

 the character of the work undertaken, the rights of the 

 engineer may be affected. In one case (Brunlees v. Mersey 

 Ry. Co., Engineering, Dec. 30, 1904) a curious question arose 

 as to the rights of a consulting engineer. 



The facts may be stated very shortly. It appears that an 

 agreement, dated May 24, 1881, was entered into between the 

 Mersey Railway Company, of the first part, the late Mr. James 

 Brunlees and Sir Douglas Fox, of the second part, and the 

 plaintiff and Mr. Francis Fox, of the third part. Under this 

 document the Mersey Railway Company confirmed the 

 appointment of the late Mr. James Brunlees and Sir Douglas 

 Fox as joint engineers of the company, such appointment to 

 apply to and to cover all extensions of the company's railway or 

 undertaking which might be thereafter authorised. The 

 parties of the second part, and also those of the third part, 

 when called upon to do so under the agreement, agreed to act 

 as such engineers. All the engineers were to be paid by the 

 company for their services and expenses in connection with 

 any application to Parliament at the usual rates, and for their 

 services and expenses in connection with any rolling stock or 

 with future extension or deviation works, stations, or machinery, 

 5 per cent, upon the cost. It was also provided that, in the event 

 of the death or retirement of Mr. James Brunlees, Mr. John 

 Brunlees, the plaintiff, should be appointed engineer in his 

 place, with all his rights and responsibilities. It was also 

 provided that Sir Douglas Fox should be succeeded by Mr. 

 Francis Fox. After the death of Mr. James Brunlees, the 

 plaintiff did in some measure act as engineer to the railway 

 company. The company having got into difficulties, a receiver 

 was appointed, such work as had to be done being still 

 superintended by the plaintiff and Sir Douglas Fox. In 1899 

 the company had almost come to a standstill, when a Mr. 

 Falconer became chairman. He conceived the idea of work- 

 ing the line by electricity, and with that object an application 

 was made to Parliament, the deposited plans being signed by 

 Sir Douglas Fox and Mr. John Brunlees. Mr. Falconer said 



L.A.E. D 



