McCord v. W. Union Tel. Co.

• Decision Date: 04 September 1888
• Citation: 39 N.W. 315,39 Minn. 181
• Parties: MCCORD v WESTERN UNION TEL. CO.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

39 Minn. 181

39 N.W. 315

MCCORDvWESTERN UNION TEL. CO.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

September 4, 1888.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

A telegraph company is liable for the fraud and misfeasance of an agent, intrusted with the duty of transmitting messages over its line, in sending a false and fraudulent message prepared by himself to a party who received the same in the usual course of business, and in good faith acts thereon, to his damage.¹

And where the local agent of a telegraph company, who was also agent of an express company at the same place, sent a forged dispatch to a merchant in a neighboring city, requesting him to forward money to his correspondent at the former place, to use in buying grain, and the same was duly received, and the money in good faith forwarded by express in response to the telegram, but was intercepted and converted to his own use by the agent, held, that the transmission of the forged dispatch was the proximate cause of the loss, and that the corporation was liable, though an action might also have been maintained against the express company.

Appeal from district court, Ramsey county; SIMONS, Judge.

Action by Thomas McCord against the Western Union Telegraph Company to recover for a loss sustained by means of a fraudulent message sent over defendant's line by one of its agents. Defendant appeals from a judgment in plaintiff's favor.

I. V. D. Heard, (Wager Swayne, George H. Fearons, and C. Walter Artz, of counsel,) for appellant.

Flandrau, Squires & Cutcheon, for respondent.

VANDERBURGH, J.

Dudley & Co., who resided at Grove City, Minn., were the agents of plaintiff for the purchase of wheat for him. He resided at Minneapolis, and was in the habit of forwarding money to them, to be used in making such purchases, in response to telegrams sent over the defendant's line, and delivered to him by it. On the 1st day of February, 1887, the defendant transmitted and delivered to plaintiff the following message, viz.:

“GROVE CITY, MINN., February 1, 1887.

“To T. M. McCord & Co.: Send one thousand or fifteen hundred to-morrow. DUDLEY & CO.”

The plaintiff in good faith acted upon this request, believing it to be genuine, and, in accordance with his custom, forwarded through the American Express Company the sum of $1,500 in currency, properly addressed to Dudley & Co., at Grove City. It turned out, however, that this dispatch was not sent by Dudley & Co., or with their knowledge or authority; but it was in fact false and fraudulent, and was written and sent by the agent of the defendant at Grove City, whose business it was to receive and transmit messages at that place. He was also at the same time the agent of the American Express Company for the transaction of its business, and for a long time previous to the date mentioned had so acted as agent for both companies at Grove City, and was well informed of plaintiff's method of doing business with Dudley & Co. On the arrival of the package by express at Grove City, containing the sum named, it was intercepted and abstracted by the agent, who converted the same to his own use. The dispatch was delivered to the plaintiff, and the money forwarded in the usual course of business. These facts, as disclosed by the record, are sufficient, we think, to establish the defendant's liability in this action.

1. Considering the business relations existing between plaintiff and Dudley & Co., the dispatch was reasonably interpreted to mean a requisition for one thousand or fifteen hundred dollars.

2. As respects the receiver of the message, it is entirely immaterial upon what terms or consideration the telegraph company undertook to send the message. It is enough that the message was sent over the line, and received in due course by plaintiff, and acted on by him in good faith. The action is one sounding in tort, and based upon the claim that the defendant is liable for the fraud and misfeasance of its agent in transmitting a false message prepared by himself. Telegraph Co. v. Dryburg, 35 Pa. St. 298; Gray, Tel. § 75.

3. The principal contention of defendant is, however, that the corporation is not liable for the fraudulent and tortious act of the agent in sending the message, and that the maxim respondent superior does not apply in such a case, because the agent in sending the dispatch was not acting for his master, but for himself, and about his own business, and was in fact the sender, and to be treated as having transcended his authority, and as acting outside of and not in the course of his employment, nor in furtherance of his master's business. But the rule which fastens a liability upon the master to third persons for the wrongful and unauthorized acts of his servant is not confined solely to that class of cases where the acts complained of are done in the course of the employment in furtherance of the master's business or interest, though there are many cases which fall within that rule. Mott v. Ice Co., 73 N. Y. 547;Savings Inst. v. Bank, 80 N. Y 168;Potulni v. Saunders, 35 N. W. Rep. 379. Where the business with which the agent is intrusted involves a duty owed by the master to the public or third persons, if the agent, while so employed, by his own wrongful act occasions a violation of that duty, or an injury to the person interested in its faithful performance by or on behalf of the master, the master is liable for the breach of it, whether it be founded in contract or be a common-law duty growing out of the relations of the parties. 1 Shear. & R. Neg. (4th Ed.) §§ 149, 150, 154; Tayl. Corp. (2d Ed.) § 145. And it is immaterial in such case that the wrongful act of the servant is in itself willful, malicious, or fraudulent. Thus a carrier of passengers is bound to exercise due regard for their safety and welfare, and to protect them from insult. If the servants employed by such carrier in the course of such employment disregard these obligations, and maliciously and willfully, and even in disregard of the express instructions of their employers, insult and maltreat passengers, under their care, the master is liable. Stewart v. Railroad Co., 90 N. Y. 593. In Booth v. Bank, 50 N. Y. 400, an officer of a bank wrongfully discharged a judgment which had been recovered by the bank, after it had been assigned to the plaintiff. It was there claimed that the authority of the officer and the bank itself to satisfy the judgment had ceased, and that hence the bank was not bound by what its president did after such assignment. But the court held otherwise, evidently upon the same general principle, as respects the duty of the bank to the assignee, and laid down the general proposition equally applicable to the agent of the defendant in the case at bar, that the particular act of the...