Blain v. Pacific Exp. Co.

• Decision Date: 11 November 1887
• Citation: 6 S.W. 679
• Parties: BLAIN <I>et al.</I> v. PACIFIC EXP. CO.
• Court: Texas Supreme Court

6 S.W. 679

BLAIN et al. v. PACIFIC EXP. CO.

Supreme Court of Texas.

November 11, 1887.

Appeal from district court, Grayson county.

Action by plaintiffs, Blain and Kelly, against the Pacific Express Company for a reward offered by the defendant for the capture of Prentice Tiller and his unknown accomplice. The latter, one George McFadden, was captured by the plaintiffs, and action brought for $2,500, being one-half the reward offered for the capture of both. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiffs appeal.

Hare, Head & Hare, for appellants. Brown & Gunter, for appellee.

STAYTON, J.

The appellants brought this action to recover $5,000 which they claimed as a reward offered for the arrest of one Tiller and his unknown accomplice, who were charged with having stolen or embezzled a large sum of money from the express company. The proclamation offering the reward was copied into the petition, and closed with the following words: "A reward of five thousand dollars will be paid for their arrest, and ten per cent. of all money recovered." This was signed by "E. M. MORSMAN, Vice-President and General Manager," and by "L. A. FULLER, Supt. Pacific Express Company." The petition alleged that one McFadden was the accomplice of Tiller, and that he was arrested by the plaintiffs, and confined in prison in Texas, until, upon requisition from the governor of Missouri, he was delivered to the proper officers, by whom he was carried to the state of Missouri, where he was indicted and convicted. By a supplemental petition, it was alleged that Fuller, who signed the proclamation offering the reward, came to Texas with the requisition for McFadden, and that, while he was in Texas, he "admitted the liability of the defendant for the reward so offered for his arrest, and agreed that defendant would pay the same as soon as it was ascertained who was entitled to it; saying that one Harrington might claim the reward, and that defendant did not wish to pay the claim twice. But he (the said Fuller) admitted the liability of the defendant to pay the reward for the arrest of the said McFadden in compliance with said offer, and agreed to pay twenty-five hundred dollars in compliance thereto to whomsoever was entitled to it for said arrest." The petition then abandoned all claim for more than $2,500. The answer denied all the averments of the petitions, and denied specially that Fuller had any authority whatever to bind the express company by the statements or agreements set up in the supplemental petition. McFadden was arrested under a warrant by the plaintiffs, both of whom were peace-officers, authorized to execute criminal process; and this was alleged in the answer, and made a ground of defense, as were some other matters not necessary to be stated.

On the trial, the plaintiffs proved that McFadden was arrested by them as alleged, and read in evidence the proclamation offering the reward; and they also showed that Fuller, at the time the...