Burgess v. Singer Manuf'G Co.

• Decision Date: 03 April 1895
• Citation: 30 S.W. 1110
• Parties: BURGESS v. SINGER MANUF'G CO. et al.
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

30 S.W. 1110

BURGESS v. SINGER MANUF'G CO. et al.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas.

April 3, 1895.

Appeal from district court, Dallas county; R. E. Burke, Judge.

Action by J. O. Burgess against the Singer Manufacturing Company and another for malicious prosecution. From a judgment denying his motion for a new trial, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

M. L. Dye and Byron Johnson, for appellant. Watts, Aldredge & Eckford, for appellees.

Conclusions of Fact.

RAINEY, J.

The Singer Manufacturing Company, one of the appellees, is a corporation, and was doing business in Texas in September, 1891, and for some time prior thereto. At that time Kirk Hall (the other appellee) was manager for said company in North Texas, with his office at Dallas. Hall's contract with the company contained the following provisions, to wit: "(5) That he, Kirk Hall, is not authorized to contract any debts on account of the Singer Manufacturing Company; nor to bring or permit any suit without express authority from said company; nor to purchase horses, wagons, harness, sleighs, stationery, or furniture; nor to advertise in any manner; nor to rent or agree to rent or hire any store, office, barn, stable, or other tenement; and that he will be personally liable for any and all costs, expenses, or damages arising from such unauthorized action. And, further, that with all those working under his supervision he will make contracts in writing, taking bonds with good security for the honest and faithful performance of their duties, which bonds and contracts he will forward at once to said branch office for the approval of its agent there, and said contract shall not be binding on said company until so approved and signed." In 1890 said Hall employed appellant to work for said company at Ft. Worth, under supervision of the Dallas office, appellant to be at all expenses of running the business of selling the machines at Ft. Worth, and to receive a commission on the amount of sales made by him. In January, 1891, Burgess sold a machine to W. H. Taylor, receiving for it $20 in money and a $25 carpet. On February 21, 1891, he reported to the company that said machine was not sold, but at Taylor's on trial. On May 2, 1891, appellant reported said machine in stock back at the Singer Company's office in Ft. Worth. No other report was made by Burgess about this machine. Hall made a statement of these facts to the assistant county attorney of Tarrant county, who procured the indictment of Burgess, who was arrested, tried, and acquitted. Two indictments were found, — one alleging the ownership of the property to be in Hall, which was dismissed, the other alleging the ownership to be in the company. Burgess was forced to give bond, and during the trial was incarcerated in jail, all of which caused him much mortification. His expenses necessarily incurred in defending the prosecution amounted to several hundred dollars, and the prosecution injured his reputation and caused him the loss of employment. The company knew nothing of the prosecution, and...