Halverson v. Chi., M. & St. P. R. Co.

• Decision Date: 04 May 1894
• Citation: 57 Minn. 142,58 N.W. 871
• Parties: HALVERSON v. CHICAGO, M. & ST. P. R. CO.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

57 Minn. 142

58 N.W. 871

HALVERSON

v.CHICAGO, M. & ST. P. R. CO.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

May 4, 1894.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

1. It cannot be presumed that a section boss on a railroad has any more authority than what is necessary for the discharge of the duties ordinarily belonging to that position.

2. In a suit against a railroad company for the value of stock killed, the statements of its section boss as to the value of stock are not competent evidence of such value, unless it is proved that he had authority to bind the company by such statements.

3. The declarations of an alleged agent, not a part of the res gestae, are not competent evidence of his authority.

Appeal from district court, Fillmore county; John Whytock, Judge.

Action by Elmer Halverson against the Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railroad Company. Verdict for plaintiff. From an order denying a motion for a new trial, defendant appeals. Reversed.

Wells & Hopp, for appellant.

G. W. Rockwell, for respondent.

CANTY, J.

Defendant's railroad runs through plaintiff's farm. Two of his colts escaped through a broken and imperfectly fastened gate in the fence of defendant along its track, and were killed, and he brings this action to recover damages therefor.

The question of defendant's negligence and plaintiff's contributory negligence were for the jury, but we are of the opinion that there was an error in the admission of evidence. Plaintiff was allowed to testify, against defendant's objection, that the section boss, Johnson, told him that the colts were worth $75 apiece. There was no evidence that the section boss had any authority from the company to value the colts, or that the question of the valuation of the colts or the settlement of the loss was a part of his business, or within the scope of his authority. It is true that the witness stated that the section boss said that “the interest in the company required him that he should state about what the cattle were worth in such cases.” But the declarations of an agent are not competent to prove his authority. 2 Greenl. Ev. (14th Ed.) § 63, note b. It cannot be presumed that a section boss has any more authority than what is necessary for the discharge of the duties ordinarily belonging to his position. If he had any further authority, it should be proved by competent evidence. The admission of this testimony was error. Wall v. Railway Co. (Iowa) 56 N. W. 436;Doyle v. Railway Co., 42 Minn. 79, 43 N. W. 787. The order...