after stating the case: The appeal presents the single question whether, under the Federal law, the evidence is sufficient to carry the case to the jury and to warrant a verdict for the plaintiff. We think it is.

*539 It is conceded that, if the hand brakes on the car in question were inefficient and this caused the injury, there is inescapable liability under the Safety Appliance Act. Hamilton v. R. R., 200 N. C., 543, 158 S. E., 75. But defendant says plaintiff’s proof leaves the cause of the injury in conjecture. Collins v. Great Northern Ry. Co., 231 N. W. (Minn.), 797. His testimony that the brakes were used in the normal and usual manner and failed to work, coupled with that of defendant’s witnesses, was such evidence of inefficiency as to make an issue for the jury. Detroit T. & I. R. Co. v. Hahn, 47 Fed. (2d), 59; Didinger v. Pa. R. Co., 39 Fed. (2d), 798.

Narrowed, as the appeal is, to the sufficiency of the evidence to carry the case to the jury and to warrant a verdict for the plaintiff, it would serve no useful purpose to elaborate the testimony. Inefficiency of hand brakes, like the ones here in question, may be shown from some particular defect, or by a failure to function when operated with due care, in the normal, natural and usual manner. Altman v. A. C. L., 18 Fed. (2d), 405. The plaintiff pursued the latter method in his proof.

No error.