Moore v. Skyles
| Decision Date | 25 October 1905 |
| Citation | 82 P. 799,33 Mont. 135 |
| Parties | MOORE v. SKYLES. |
| Court | Montana Supreme Court |
Appeal from District Court, Flathead County; D. F. Smith, Judge.
Action by Ross Moore against John F. Skyles. From a judgment rendered for plaintiff on appeal from a justice's judgment, and from an order denying a new trial, defendant appeals. Reversed.
B. J McIntire, and W. H. Poorman, for appellant.
F. L Gray, for respondent.
This action was commenced in a justice of the peace court by the plaintiff to recover the sum of $31. Judgment was rendered in favor of plaintiff, and defendant appealed to the district court, where the plaintiff again prevailed, and the defendant appeals to this court from the judgment and from an order denying his motion for a new trial.
The facts disclosed by the record are: That on October 13, 1903 the post office at Kendall, Mont., issued to Alex. Wilson a postal money order for $31, payable at Kalispell, Mont. This money order was indorsed by Wilson and transferred to this defendant, Skyles. Upon December 1, 1903, Skyles sent the order by one J. J. Kelley to the post office at Kalispell with instructions to see if it was all right, and, if so, to get it cashed. Kelley took the order to the post office at Kalispell, where payment was refused for the reason that the order was then payable to Skyles and Skyles had not indorsed it. Kelley then sold the order to this plaintiff, indorsed it with his own name, and received for it the full sum of $31. Plaintiff then presented the order for payment, which was again refused for the reason advanced to Kelley. Moore then sent the order back to the defendant at Whitefish, Mont., for his indorsement; but, as the defendant had not received anything whatever from Kelley for the order, he indorsed it, sent it to the Post Office Department, and himself received payment in full. Moore then brought this suit for damages in the sum of $31, the face value of the order. These facts were brought out by the testimony of plaintiff's witnesses, and this is the substance of all the evidence introduced. The defendant did not offer any testimony, but moved for a nonsuit, which was denied. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, and judgment was rendered thereon.
From these facts it appears that Kelley was a special agent of Skyles, within the definition given in section 3072 of the Civil Code, which reads as follows: See, also Butler v. Maples, 9 Wall. 766, 19 L.Ed. 822. All persons dealing with an agent are bound to ascertain the scope of the agent's authority, and if they do not they deal with him at their peril. Bank...
To continue reading
Request your trial