Tbe only serious question presented by tbe record is whether or not tbe motion for nonsuit should have been allowed.

No defect in the machine was alleged and no evidence thereof offered. The method of doing the work by placing the cotton on the moving belt or slats, to be conveyed to the rollers, was usual, approved and not dangerous. “It is well recognized that, although the machinery and place of work may be all that is required, liability may, and frequently does, attach by reason of the negligent orders of a' foreman, or boss who stands towards the aggrieved party in the place of vice-principal.” Hoke, J., in Howard v. Oil Co., 174 N. C., 651. It is also well established that, “where one having authority to give orders to another, who is inexperienced, gives a negligent order, which a reasonably prudent man would not give, and the servant is injured in attempting to obey said order, and the giving said order was the proximate cause of bis injury, the servant is entitled to recover.” Clark, C. J., in Holton v. Lumber Co., 152 N. C., 68.

The sole inquiry is to determine whether or not the foreman gave a negligent order or instruction in directing the plaintiff “when the apron got choked to bold it with one band and clean it out with the other.” It must be observed from the plaintiff’s testimony that the rollers at the top of the apron were readily observable and that be fully appreciated the danger of permitting bis band to come in contact with them. It must also be observed that there was no danger in laying the band upon the slats or moving belt unless the band was permitted to remain on the moving belt and be conveyed to the rollers. When cotton bad fallen from the moving belt to the apron and choked it the moving belt or *20 slats came to a standstill. Tbe plaintiff put his hand upon the stationary slats or belt and began to unchoke the apron. When partially un-ehoked the slats began to move and plaintiff, according to his own testimony, while looking under the apron, with his hand upon a moving belt, and charged with knowledge that the belt was moving toward the rollers, and that the rollers would crush his hand, still permitted his hand to remain until it was fed into the rollers and crushed.

This case is governed by the principle announced by the Court in Mathis v. Mfg. Co., 140 N. C., 530. In that case Brown, J., said with reference to plaintiff’s injury: “He was injured, according to his own evidence, by running his hand under the table without looking where he put it. The foreman could not have imparted to plaintiff any further information than he already had. The plaintiff had equal knowledge with the foreman as to the dangers incident to operating the saw, and he had sufficient discretion, so far as age and experience go, to appreciate the peril. The plaintiff knew the danger incident to cleaning out the sawdust box with the circular saw revolving rapidly just above it as well as the foreman could have told him.”

So in the present case the order given by the foreman to the plaintiff was to perform a duty that in itself was simple and safe. Of course, if the workman permitted his hand to remain on the belt and be drawn into the rollers, serious injury was imminent and certain, but the plaintiff was thoroughly aware of this situation.

Upon a consideration of the entire case and the rules of law applicable, we are of the opinion that the motion for nonsuit should have been allowed.

Reversed.