Bedford Belt Railway Company v. McDonald
| Decision Date | 30 April 1897 |
| Docket Number | 2,130 |
| Parties | BEDFORD BELT RAILWAY COMPANY v. MCDONALD |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
From the Monroe Circuit Court.
Affirmed.
Frank M. Trissal, for appellant.
H. C Duncan, I. C. Batman, W. H. Martin, J. R. East and R. G Miller, for appellee.
Appellee seeks to recover the value of medical services rendered appellant's employes. The complaint is in two paragraphs. Demurrers for want of facts were overruled and appellant answered with the general issue and payment. The jury returned a special verdict, and over appellant's motion in arrest, and its motion for a new trial, judgment was rendered on the verdict. The errors assigned are the overruling of the demurrers to the complaint, the motions for a new trial and in arrest, and in rendering judgment in appellee's favor on the special verdict.
The first paragraph of the complaint alleges that appellee is a licensed practicing physician and surgeon; that appellant is a railway corporation, organized under the laws of this State; that appellant is indebted to appellee for medical and surgical services rendered employes of appellant at appellant's special instance and request; that the services were rendered employes injured in the line of their employment in appellant's service.
It is averred in the second paragraph that appellee was employed by the president, vice president, general manager, secretary and treasurer of appellant to render medical and surgical attention to appellant's employes injured in the line of their employment in appellant's service, and particularly to employes named in a bill of particulars filed with and made a part of each paragraph of complaint, the value of which services he seeks to recover.
When this case was here on a former appeal, the complaint was held bad for failing to show that appellant was a licensed physician and that the services were rendered for workmen of appellant injured in the performance of duty, or for persons injured by its trains. Bedford Belt R. W. Co. v. McDonald, 12 Ind.App. 620, 40 N.E. 821.
A railroad corporation is under no different obligation to procure medical and surgical aid for its employes than is any other corporation or person under like circumstances.
It is well settled that the general officers of a railroad company have power to employ medical attendance for workmen injured in the performance of duty in the company's service. Toledo, etc., R. R. Co. v. Mylott, 6 Ind.App. 438, 33 N.E. 135, and cases there cited.
On the former appeal it was said that, Bedford Belt R. W. Co. v. McDonald, supra.
It is said by appellant's counsel that "The reference to 'subordinate officers' could only mean, and was doubtless intended to be meant as 'subordinate' to the board of directors, and could not possibly have been used to designate some one whose rank or title was inferior to that of the general officers."
We do not think it can be said that the president of a railroad company is a subordinate officer of the corporation. The statute concerning the organization of railroad companies provides that there shall be a president of the company, who shall be chosen by and from the directors. The statute further provides that the board of directors has power to make by-laws for the management of the business affairs of the company, and prescribing the duties of officers, and for the appointment of all the officers for carrying on all the business within the object and purpose of the company. Sections 5145, 5147, Burns' R. S. 1894.
The officers named in the complaint are selected by the company through its board of directors. They are placed in a position of power by the company, and it invests them with ostensible authority. The appellee acted upon the apparent authority with which the company clothed these officers. So far as the public is concerned such officers are almost always looked upon as the corporation itself, and through them the substantial part of the business of the corporation is done. They could make the contract sued on if the corporation itself could make it, and the only question here is, whether the contract is beyond the power of the corporation to make.
It is stoutly maintained by appellant's counsel that such a contract is outside of the objects for which the corporation was created, and is beyond the scope of the powers granted by the act of incorporation.
In Terre Haute, etc., R. R. Co. v. McMurray, 98 Ind. 358, it was held that the conductor of a train could employ a surgeon to attend an injured brakeman, the conductor being the highest representative of the corporation on the ground.
In Louisville, etc., R. W. Co. v. McVay, 98 Ind. 391, the company was held liable for the services of a nurse employed by a roadmaster, the employment having been ratified by the general manager of the company.
In Atlantic, etc., R. R. Co. v. Reisner, 18 Kan. 458, it was held that the general agent of the company could employ a surgeon to attend an injured employe, the court saying: "The general agent of the company is virtually the corporation itself."
In Swazey v. Union Mfg. Co., 42 Conn. 556, the business manager bound the corporation for the value of a surgeon's services in attending a boy injured in the corporation's service.
The general superintendent of a railroad company has authority to employ a surgeon to attend a person injured by one of the company's trains, whether the injured person be an employe or not. Cincinnati, etc., R. W. Co. v. Davis, 126 Ind. 99, 19 L. R. A. 503, 25 N.E. 878. See Terre Haute, etc., R. R. Co. v. Stockwell, 118 Ind. 98, 20 N.E. 650; Terre Haute, etc., R. R. Co. v. Brown, 107 Ind. 336, 8 N.E. 218.
During recent years many railroad companies have established voluntary relief departments for the purpose of accumulating a fund out of which to pay employes, who are members, sick and disablement benefits, and the courts of many states have assumed that the act of establishing such a department is within the express, or implied powers of the corporation. Miller v. Chicago, etc., R. W. Co., 65 F. 305; Leas v. Pennsylvania Co., 10 Ind.App. 47, 37 N.E. 423; Vickers v. Chicago, etc., R. R. Co., 71 F. 139; Donald v. Chicago, etc., R. W. Co., 93 Iowa 284, 61 N.W. 971; Johnson v. Philadelphia, etc., R. R. Co., 163 Pa. 127, 29 A. 854; Voluntary Relief Department, etc., v. Spencer, ante, 123.
In Thompson on Corporations, section 5840, the author says: "An implied power will be ascribed to any corporation employing labor, to incur expense on account of injuries received by its employes in the line of their employment, in the absence of any express statutory grant of such power. "
While in a certain...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bedford Belt Ry. Co. v. McDonald
...17 Ind.App. 49246 N.E. 1022BEDFORD BELT RY. CO.v.McDONALD.Appellate Court of Indiana.April 30, Appeal from circuit court, Monroe county; R. W. Miers, Judge. Action by Arthur J. McDonald against the Bedford Belt Railway Company. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affir......