Pennsylvania Co. v. Nations

• Citation: 12 N.E. 309,111 Ind. 203
• Parties: Pennsylvania Co. v. Nations.
• Decision Date: 28 May 1887
• Court: Supreme Court of Indiana

111 Ind. 203

12 N.E. 309

Pennsylvania Co.

v.Nations.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

May 28, 1887.

Appeal from circuit court, Owen county.

S. O. Pickens, for appellant. Robinson & Fowler, for appellee.

Mitchell, J.

Calvin F. Nations, George W. and Isaac A. Bledsoe sued the Pennsylvania Company to recover upon an alleged contract for the use of two portable steam-engines, and for the services of two engineers. The plaintiffs claimed that the company engaged the engines and engineers in its service at the agreed price of $10 per day, and that the engines and engineers had served it for the period of 45 days, for which service a special sum remained due to Nations individually, and another sum to Bledsoe & Bledsoe. Nations recovered $60. As to the Bledsoes, the finding was for the company. There was a dispute as to the time the engines were employed. The company claimed that it contracted with the parties jointly, or rather that it had contracted with Bledsoe for both engines, and that it had paid him a gross sum sufficient to liquidate its obligation under the contract. What purports to be a bill of exceptions recites that one of the Bledsoes, while testifying as a witness, was asked to state what a Mr. Yockey, the company's foreman and time-keeper, told him as to the number of days the plaintiffs' engines had been engaged in the company's service, and the amount due them under the agreement. Over objections, the witness was permitted to answer that Yockey told him that the engines had been employed a given number of days, and that a given amount remained due, as he understood the contract. It is said that the company cannot be bound by the declarations of its agent. The bill of exceptions upon which the question is made is a mere recital by the court, in its own language, in narrative form, of what purports to be the substance of the questions and answers objected to, and the rulings thereon. This method of presenting a question upon evidence is not approved. We are unable to ascertain from the bill how or in what connection, or the circumstances under which, the conversation between Yockey and Bledsoe was had. For all that appears, Bledsoe may have been directed by the company to apply to its time-keeper to ascertain the time his engines had been employed, and the amount appearing to be due. If Yockey was the company's time-keeper, as we infer he was, appointed and authorized to keep the plaintiff's time, and the state of their accounts, it must be implied that he was authorized to give them information on that subject. That was in the line of his employment, and a...