G. H. & S. A. R'Y Co. v. Donahoe

• Decision Date: 30 January 1882
• Docket Number: Case No. 497.
• Citation: 56 Tex. 162
• Parties: G. H. & S. A. R'Y CO. v. JOHN DONAHOE.
• Court: Texas Supreme Court

56 Tex. 162

G. H. & S. A. R'Y CO.

v.JOHN DONAHOE.

Case No. 497.

Supreme Court of Texas.

Jan. 30, 1882.

APPEAL from Fort Bend. Tried below before the Hon. Livingstone Lindsay.

Suit by John Donahoe against the appellant to recover $10,000 damages.

The petition charged in substance as follows: That on the 1st day of April, 1875, Donahoe, at Randon Station in Fort Bend county, on the railway line owned by appellant, went aboard of the west-bound passenger train, with the view of going to Luling, another station on the line. There was no ticket office at Randon Station, and when the conductor came around to collect fare, he ascertained that the fare from Randon to Luling was $5.70; that he gave the conductor a twenty-dollar United States currency bill; the conductor passed on with the money, and Donahoe supposed that he would return the change as soon as he could get the bill broken; that when the train arrived at Columbus, in Colorado county, an intermediate station, the conductor, without saying anything to Donahoe about the matter, wrongfully and maliciously made an affidavit before a justice of the peace, charging appellee with passing counterfeit money, and wrongfully caused him to be ejected from the cars, and prevented him from continuing on his journey to Luling, to his damage in the sum of $5,000; that the bill which he gave to the conductor was genuine and not counterfeit, and that the proceeding so instituted against him by the conductor was wrongful, malicious, without probable cause, and that he was then and there wrongfully and illegally arrested at the instance and procurement of the conductor, without probable cause, who procured and caused him to be illegally, wrongfully and maliciously imprisoned in the county jail, where he was detained and kept for six days, and was then discharged for want of prosecution; and that he was thereby further damaged in the sum of $5,000; that all of the said illegal, wrongful and malicious acts of the conductor were done and performed within the scope of the duties and powers of his agency, and therefore the same were the acts of the appellant. He prayed for a judgment for $10,000 damages.

The railway company moved to quash the service on account of misnomer; also excepted to the petition on account of a misjoinder of causes of action, and answered by general denial, and specially, amongst other things, that all of the acts of the conductor complained of were outside of his duty as the agent of appellant, and that therefore appellant was not liable as claimed.

The appellant's motion to quash the service, and exceptions, were overruled. Verdict and judgment in favor of appellee for $4,000.

The errors relied on are these: 1. Overruling the motion to quash service and the demurrer to the petition. 2. The charge of the court. 3. Exclusion of evidence.

John T. Harcourt, for appellant.

P. E. Pearson, for appellee.

WATTS, J. COM. APP.

Upon the trial below the appellant introduced as a witness Hardy Eddins, the superintendent of appellant's railway, and asked him the following questions: “What are the duties and authority of the conductor of a railway train on said railway; and was the instigation of the arrest of a man who was charged with passing counterfeit money within the scope, sphere or range of a conductor, or not?” Appellee objected to the witness answering the questions, and the court sustained the objection. The point was saved by bill, is assigned as error, and relied upon in the brief of counsel.

The duty and authority of a conductor, considered as a matter of law, does not extend beyond that specified in the statute. He is there recognized as the officer or agent of the corporation in charge of the train, with authority to collect fare from the passengers, and power to put them out of the cars if they refuse to pay. He is made criminally liable for injuries resulting from negligence in the formation of passenger trains under his control.

Outside of these and some other unimportant provisions relating to conductors, his powers, duties and obligations are not defined by law; to the extent mentioned he is liable, and can lawfully exercise the authority conferred; and as between the corporation and strangers, the former cannot, for the purpose of avoiding a liability, qualify or limit the authority thus conferred upon the conductor as its agent, by...