as the straining of a muscle, or the breaking of a blood vessel. If that occurred when he was lifting a weight it would be properly described as an accident."

Again we quote from the opinion on pages 283 and 284:

* *

"The man 'broke part of his body,' to borrow Lord Robertson's expression in Brintons v. Turvey, 7 W. C. C. 1. And he certainly did not mean to do it. * * The fact that the man's condition predisposed him to such an accident seems to me to be immaterial. The work was ordinary work; but it was too heavy for him. **** The fact that the result would have been expected, or indeed contemplated as a certainty, by a medical man of ordinary skill if he had diagnosed the case, is, I think, nothing to the purpose. An occurrence, I think, is unexpected, if it is not expected by the man who suffers by it."

In Fenton vs. J. Thorley & Co. Ltd. 5 W. C. C. (the same being a House of Lords case), it is said on page 4:

"If a man, in lifting a weight or trying to move something not easily moved, were to strain a muscle, or rick his back, or rupture himself, the mishap in ordinary parlance would be described as an accident. Anybody would say that the man had met with an accident in lifting a weight, or trying to move something too heavy. for him."

Bradbury in his work on Workmen's Compensation, Page 367, Vol. 1, Second Edition, stated the general rule as follows: "Rupture caused by overexertion in the course of a man's work is an accident within the meaning of the Compensation Act."

Citing a large number of English and American Authorities. The same general rule is laid down in Boyd's Workmen's Compensation on Page 1043. It has also been adopted by the United States Government in the administration of the Compensation Law applicable to government employes, the principle being stated as follows:

"A person whose duty requires him to lift heavy weights may, in so doing, overstrain himself and cause a rupture. Even though the rupture be due, in some degree, to the naturally feeble condition of the employee, he would, without doubt, be entitled to the benefits of

the act."

See Opinions of Solicitor for Department of Commerce and Labor, Page 151.

We do not overlook the medical evidence introduced on the hearing to the effect that hernia should be classed as an accident only in a few rare cases. We think that the weight of authority in workmen's compensation cases is clearly against such theory, and that the general rule established in the adjudicated cases and the text books is otherwise. The Board is of the opinion that there are many cases of hernia which occur under such circumstances that they could not be considered the result of accident. But we think it would be neither possible nor practicable to enumerate such conditions, as each case would have to depend upon its own peculiar facts and circumstances, and these may vary as widely as the field of human experience, depending upon things that could not be reasonably foreseen or predetermined by rule.

It seems clear that before the workman is entitled to compensation in case of hernia, it must be shown to have the essentials of an accidental injury, and it must arise out of the work, as from a strain or some other occurrence. Hernia occurring without any strain and without the elements that are necessary to constitute an accident would not come within the meaning of the law.

The award of the committee on arbitration is affirmed.

FARM LABORERS SUFFICIENT NOTICE.

Respondent drug company maintained a farm for the purpose of raising horses, guinea pigs, etc., which are used for the purpose of obtaining anti-toxins, serums, and vaccines. Applicant, while employed on this farm, was kicked in the thigh by a horse and received an injury resulting in a permanent partial disability. Compensation was denied on the ground that farm laborers do not come within the benefits of the act, and that applicant failed to give notice of his injury within the required time.

HELD: 1. That the Act does not exclude farmers from accepting the provisions of the law, but exempts them from its operation merely in the sense that they suffer no harm by not coming under it.

2. The work carried on at respondent's farm was in reality a part of its general manufacturing business.

3. The fact that the injury was reported to the farm superintendent within a few days, and claim was made for compensation in a letter to the company within the time required by law, was sufficient notice of applicant's claim.

Appeal of Hugh Shafer from the decision of an arbitration committee denying compensation for injuries received while applicant was working on a farm owned by Parke, Davis & Company. Decision reversed and compensation ordered paid.

Opinion by the Board:

Parke, Davis & Company, the respondent, is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Michigan, its character and scope being set forth in the articles of incorporation as follows:

"The purpose or purposes of this corporation are as follows: The

manufacture and sale of chemicals and pharmaceuticals; the propagation and sale of serums, vaccines, toxins, anti-toxins, and biological and bacteriological products generally; the printing, publication and sale of medicinal and pharmaceutical pamphlets, books and magazines, and all business incident to such manufacture, propagation, printing, publication and sale."

The business in which respondent is actually engaged under its corporate charter is set forth in some detail in its brief filed in this case, as follows:

"Incidental to the manufacture and sale of said chemicals and pharmaceuticals, respondent is extensively engaged in the business of manufacturing machines, glass ware, boxes, cartons, display cards, etc. Respondent also maintains a large printing plant, garage, fire department, biological laboratory, medicinal research department, experimental department, auditing department, law department, and, last but not least, a farm."

The so-called farm of respondent consists of a tract of land near Rochester, Michigan, where about 40 hands are employed. On this farm are kept from 200 to 300 horses, about 2,500 guinea pigs, 10 cows, and a considerable number of rabbits and other animals.

The principal output of the farm consists of toxins, antitoxins, serums and vaccines produced from the animals aforesaid by inoculation, treatments and sundry processes. These were mainly shipped to the Detroit plant of the company, which is a large manufacturing and commercial plant, employing over 2,000 men, where they are prepared for market and sent out to the trade as part of the regular business of the company.

The applicant was injured while working on this farm, socalled, by a kick from a horse which fractured the neck of the left femur, resulting in what apparently is permanent partial disability. Part of his work on the farm was taking care of the horses, preparing them for operations and assisting the operator. The ten buildings on the farm included an operating room and a laboratory. Crops were raised on the land,

consisting of grain and hay, the same being used generally in feeding and caring for the animals.

Its acceptance of the Workmen's Compensation Law was filed by respondent on August 31, 1912, and approved by the Board on September 12th of the same year, the same being the usual unconditional acceptance of the provisions of the Act. It is contended that applicant was working for respondent at the time of the injury as a farm laborer and that the Law, together with election of respondent to come under it, did not include respondent's farm laborers within its benefits. It is further contended that applicant failed to give notice of injury and to make claim for compensation within the times required by the Act, and for these reasons must be denied compensation.

The only reference to farm laborers in the Act is found in Section 2 of Part I, and is merely a declaration that Section 1, which repeals the special defenses, shall not apply to actions for the recovery of damages by farm laborers. This does not exclude farmers from coming under the Law, but exempts them from its operation merely in the sense that they suffer no harm from not coming under it. The farmer may come under the Law by filing his acceptance if he so desires,. and if such acceptance is unconditional his employes would be entitled to compensation in case of injury the same as if he were engaged in manufacturing, mining, or any other business. The contention that he may, if he choose, file an acceptance for the benefit of only a part of his men, because exempt from the provisions of the Law in the above sense, would not change the situation even if sustained, for the reason that the acceptance of the respondent in this case is unconditional and does not assume to exclude any of its employes. Also for the further reason that a manufacturing and commercial corporation such as respondent could not well be classed as a farmer.

Respondent's claim must fail for another reason. The work carried on at the so-called farm constituted a part of the man