United States Express Co. v. Rawson

• Decision Date: 13 April 1886
• Docket Number: 12,463
• Citation: 6 N.E. 337,106 Ind. 215
• Parties: The United States Express Company v. Rawson et al
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

6 N.E. 337

106 Ind. 215

The United States Express Company v. Rawson et al

No. 12,463

Supreme Court of Indiana

April 13, 1886

From the Hamilton Circuit Court.

The judgment is affirmed, at appellant's costs.

A. F Shirts, G. Shirts and W. R. Fertig, for appellant.

D. Moss and R. R. Stephenson, for appellees.

OPINION

Zollars, J.

The jury returned a special verdict, in which they found the following, amongst other facts: The express company was doing business over a line extending from Michigan City to and beyond Arcadia, in Hamilton county. Its business consisted partly, in forwarding and collecting bills of exchange, etc., for its customers and patrons. In August, 1883, it received from appellees at Michigan City, a bill of exchange for $ 167, drawn by them upon one Dickover, at Arcadia. This bill was endorsed to and received by the company for collection, and for that purpose was forwarded to its agent at Arcadia, he being in charge of all its business at that place. On the 25th day of August, 1883, Dickover paid to the agent at Arcadia, $ 100 upon the bill. At the time the money was thus paid, that agent, under a rule of the company, had no authority to receive partial payments upon such bills, but appellees had no knowledge of the existence of the rule. The agent of the company at Michigan City obtained the consent of appellees "to receive the said $ 100, informed the agent at Arcadia of such consent, and directed him to transmit said money, which he failed to do, but afterwards converted it to his own use and fled."

Upon the return of this verdict, appellant, by counsel, moved for a venire de novo. This motion was overruled, and, over a motion for a new trial, judgment was rendered in favor of appellees upon the verdict for $ 100 and interest thereon from the time of payment by Dickover.

The only objection made to the verdict--and that not well founded in fact--is, that it is not found therein, whether authority to receive the partial payment was given to the agent at Arcadia before or after he received the $ 100.

It is not stated in the verdict in so many words, but it clearly appears from the whole verdict, that the special directions to the agent at Arcadia to forward the money were given after it had been paid over by Dickover, and after that fact was known to the agent at Michigan City.

The finding, as will be observed, is, that under a rule of the company, the agent at Arcadia had no authority to receive partial payments upon such bills. The company, of course, had authority to receive partial payments, unless restricted by appellees. No such restrictions seem to have been imposed. It is not shown whether the agent at Michigan City was a general agent of the company, or one with limited authority. The case, however, was conducted below upon the theory that his directions, whatever they were, were authoritative and binding upon the company, and so the case is treated here. We assume, therefore, that he had authority to direct the agent at Arcadia, and to authorize him, to receive a partial payment upon the bill. If, possessing that authority, he had given such directions before the money was paid by Dickover, there could be no question as to the liability of the company for the money so received. And having authority to thus direct the agent at Arcadia in advance, he had authority to ratify the acts of that agent in receiving the payment as it was made.

The ratification of an agent's acts, with knowledge of the circumstances, relates back to the time when such acts were performed, and binds the principal the same as if authority had been given in advance. Bronson v. Chappell, 12 Wall. 681, 20 L.Ed. 436; Story Agency (8th ed.), sections 239, 242; Lawrence v. Taylor, 5 Hill, 107; Lowry v. Harris, 12 Minn. 255; Hankins v. Baker, 46 N.Y. 666; Hammond v. Hannin, 21 Mich. 374 (4 Am. R. 490); McIntyre v. Park, 11 Gray, 102; Louisville, etc., R. W. Co. v. McVay, 98 Ind. 391 (49 Am. R. 770), and cases there cited.

In this case, the verdict shows that after the money had been paid, the agent at Michigan City, with knowledge of the fact, directed its transmission by the agent at Arcadia. This amounted to a ratification of the act of that agent in receiving the money. Story Agency (8th ed.), sec. 252, et seq.

It is claimed, however, that the verdict is not sustained by the evidence, and that, therefore, the motion for a new trial should have been sustained. The contention is, that at the time Dickover paid the money to the agent, he knew that he had no authority to receive a partial payment, and that hence there was no payment upon the bill held by the agent for collection; and, further,...