Copland v. American De Forest Wireless Telegraph Co.

• Decision Date: 13 September 1904
• Citation: 48 S.E. 501,136 N.C. 11
• Parties: COPLAND v. AMERICAN DE FOREST WIRELESS TELEGRAPH CO.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

48 S.E. 501

136 N.C. 11

COPLAND v. AMERICAN DE FOREST WIRELESS TELEGRAPH CO.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

September 13, 1904

Appeal from Superior Court, Dare County; Brown, Judge.

Action by J. P. Copland against the American De Forest Wireless Telegraph Company. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Plaintiff the items of whose claim against defendant have been incurred under different contracts at different times, can maintain a separate action for the amount due under a single contract and, this being less than $200, can bring the action before a justice of the peace, though the aggregate claim exceeds such amount.

Ward & Thompson, for appellant.

D. M Stringfield and B. G. Crisp, for appellee.

CLARK C.J.

This action against a wireless telegraph company, which now makes its first appearance in this court, proves the oft-repeated observation that every phase of life, the customs, pursuits and progress of a people, soon or late are photographed in the records of its courts, as flies are preserved in amber, and as the rays of the sun are imprisoned in the diamond. The summons was served upon the local operator, who the court found as a fact was in sole charge of the defendant's property at that point, and in control of its business, and has received messages from ships at sea for pay, though the office was not yet open for general business. This made him "its local agent," under Code, § 217. The words in the proviso, "any person receiving or collecting moneys within this state for or on behalf of any corporation of this or any other state or government shall be deemed a local agent for the purposes of this section," are not intended to limit service to such class of agents, but to extend the meaning of the word "agent" to embrace them. The authority to receive money, of itself, constitutes the one so authorized a local agent, but this is not the exclusive test of agency.

The items of the plaintiff's claim having been incurred under different contracts, and at different times, the plaintiff could maintain a separate action for the amount due under each contract, and if under $200, before a justice of the peace, though the aggregate be in excess of that sum. It is optional with the creditor in such cases to join the amounts and bring an action therefor, or upon each item separately. Fort v. Penny, 122 N.C. 230, 29 S.E. 362; Magruder v. Randolph, 77 N.C. 79; Boyle v. Robbins,...