Patterson v. Neal
| Decision Date | 26 November 1902 |
| Citation | 135 Ala. 477,33 So. 39 |
| Parties | PATTERSON v. NEAL. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from city court of Jefferson; Chas. A. Senn, Judge.
Action by Joe Neal against James C. Patterson. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed.
Upon the introduction of all the evidence, the defendant requested the court to give to the jury, among others, the following written charge: "If the jury believe the evidence, they must find for the defendant." The court refused to give each of these charges requested by the defendant, and to the refusal of each of said charges the defendant separately excepted. There were verdict and judgment for the plaintiff assessing his damages at $1,500.
Wm. I Grubb, for appellant.
Henry Fitts and Jos. F. Collins, Jr., for appellee.
While the complaint in this case, as originally filed and afterwards amended, contained a number of counts, the cause was tried alone on the seventh count. No questions are raised on the pleadings. By the seventh count the plaintiff claims for the death of his minor son, a boy 16 years of age, who was killed by falling rock while he was digging coal in the defendant's mine. The complaint avers a wrongful employment of plaintiff's minor son by the defendant, in that he was so employed to dig coal without the knowledge and consent of the plaintiff, his father. It is not charged that the death was caused by any negligence on the part of the defendant or his agents, but the right of action is rested upon the wrongful employment as alleged in the complaint.
On the trial the undisputed evidence showed: That Matthew Neal, the minor son of the plaintiff, was killed by falling rock, while engaged in mining coal in one of the several mines operated by the defendant. Matthew had been employed by the defendant with the knowledge and consent of the plaintiff, as a driver in the mine; and, three days before the accident, Matthew exchanged places with his brother, who was employed as a coal digger in the mine,--Matthew taking the place of his brother as a coal digger, and the brother the place of Matthew as a driver,--and pending this exchange of places and work between the two brothers the accident resulting in the death of Matthew occurred. The defendant, Patterson, was at the time the owner and operator of several coal mines, including the one in question. Clark was the general superintendent of the defendant's mining business. Winters was an assistant under Clark, and was the mine boss of the mine in question. Clark alone, as superintendent, was given authority by the defendant to employ coal diggers in the mines. Winters had no such authority given him. That his authority and duty was to boss and direct the miners, and the operations in the mines. That sometimes persons would apply to him for employment as coal diggers, and that whenever such was the case he would report the application for employment to Clark, who would approve or disapprove, and that he never employed any one to dig coal without having first obtained the approval and consent of Clark. That whenever Clark employed a coal digger for the mine in question, he sent such person to Winters, who assigned the coal digger to his place of labor in the mine and that, whenever Clark approved the application of one seeking employment through Winters, upon such approval or consent by Clark he (Winters) would then make the employment, and assign such applicant to a place in the mine to dig coal. It is not pretended that either the defendant or Clark, his general superintendent, employed Matthew to dig coal in the mine, or that either of them had any actual knowledge that he was engaged in that work. Neither is it pretended that there was any express employment of Matthew to dig coal in the mine by Winters.
The first contention is that there was an implied contract of employment with Matthew by Winters, and, furthermore, that Winters had implied authority to employ, by reason of the principal's acquiescence in previous acts of employment of coal diggers by Winters. And the second contention of the plaintiff is that Winters...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Montgomery Ward & Co. v. Arbogast
...vested in an agent to employ sub-agents in the course of the principal's business, the following cases are instructive: In Patterson v. Neal, 135 Ala. 477, 33 So. 39, it was that where there was testimony on the part of several witnesses that a mine boss had employed men to dig coal and ass......
-
Warrant Warehouse Co. v. Cook
...834; Georgia Cotton Oil Co. v. Carlisle, 200 Ala. 226, 75 So. 984; S. S. S. & I. Co. v. Payne, 186 Ala. 341, 64 So. 617; Patterson v. Neal, 135 Ala. 477, 33 So. 39; Syndicate Ins. Co. v. Catchings, 104 Ala. 176, So. 46. The obligation of Lively to the plaintiff, incurred by his purchase of ......
-
Union Oil Co. of Cal. v. Crane
...Printing Company, 209 Ala. 403, 96 So. 336; American Law Institute Restatement of the Law of Agency, Sections 265-267; Patterson v. Neal, 135 Ala. 477, 33 So. 39. * * *' At 64, 1 So.2d at 31. In Pattillo v. Tucker, 216 Ala. 572, 575, 113 So. 1, 3, this Court said: 'But it must also be borne......
-
Jackson v. Jefferson
... ... would allow the creditor to retain such property or its ... proceeds against the timely claim of the principal ... Patterson ... v. Neal, 135 Ala. 482, 33 So. 39; Bowdon Line Works v ... Moss, 14 Ala.App. 435, 70 So. 292; 21 R. C. L. 913; ... Dorrah v. Hill, 73 Miss ... ...