6 N.E. 337 (Ind. 1886), 12,463, United States Express Co. v. Rawson

• Docket Nº: 12,463
• Citation: 6 N.E. 337, 106 Ind. 215
• Opinion Judge: Zollars, J.
• Party Name: The United States Express Company v. Rawson et al
• Attorney: A. F. Shirts, G. Shirts and W. R. Fertig, for appellant. D. Moss and R. R. Stephenson, for appellees.
• Case Date: April 13, 1886
• Court: Supreme Court of Indiana

Page 337

6 N.E. 337 (Ind. 1886)

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

Page 338

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 [106 Ind. 216] 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...