Larson v. Great Northern Railway Company

• Decision Date: 14 May 1909
• Docket Number: 16,053 - (58)
• Citation: 121 N.W. 121,108 Minn. 519
• Parties: CLARA HORTENSE LARSON v. GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

121 N.W. 121

108 Minn. 519

CLARA HORTENSE LARSON v. GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY

Nos. 16,053 - (58)

Supreme Court of Minnesota

May 14, 1909

Action in the district court for Carlton county to recover $145.85 for the loss of a suit case which was placed in defendant's care and through defendant's alleged negligence was either lost or stolen. From an order, Dibell J., overruling defendant's demurrer to the complaint, it appealed. Affirmed.

W. R Begg, J. A. Murphy and W. M. Steele, for appellant.

Walter L. Case, for respondent.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

The complaint demurred to alleged: That plaintiff, having paid to defendant, a common carrier, the proper fare, and having been duly transported to the place of her destination, Cloquet delivered a suit case containing wearing apparel to one Crook, an employee of defendant as cashier of its freight and baggage depot at that place. "That said suit case was delivered to said Crook by plaintiff with the express understanding and agreement that he should safely store and care for said valise until the following Monday morning or until July 29, 1907, at which time plaintiff agreed to call for the same; that said Crook then and there accepted and received the same."

That he placed the valise in the freight office of the defendant at Cloquet, Minnesota. That she knew, at the time of the delivery of the said property, that said Crook was an employee of the defendant, and that in delivering the property to the care of said Crook she relied upon the fact that said Crook was an employee of the defendant, and as such the defendant would become wholly responsible for said property. That she called for her valise at the freight depot, and demanded her property, or its value, and that the same has not been delivered. That her demand was refused, and that defendant did not safely keep and care for said goods but, on the contrary, negligently and carelessly allowed the same to become wholly lost to the plaintiff, and that she has been damaged in the sum of $145.85. For this sum she demands judgment. The defendant appealed from the order overruling its demurrer.

Defendant in its brief, argues three propositions, namely: (1) That the express contract with Crook here pleaded excluded a contract to which defendant was party; (2) that the act of Crook was not within the apparent scope of his authority, so as to make his acts the acts of defendant; and (3) that his...