Porter v. Raleigh & G. R. Co

• Decision Date: 10 March 1903
• Citation: 132 N. C. 71,43 S.E. 547
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: PORTER. v. RALEIGH & G. R. CO.

43 S.E. 547

132 N. C. 71

PORTER.

v.RALEIGH & G. R. CO.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 10. 1903.

COMMON CARRIERS—RULES — UNAUTHORIZED CONTRACT—RATIFICATION—EVIDENCE— QUESTION FOR JURY.

1. Evidence in an action against a railroad company, for damages resulting from negligent failure to ship goods, examined and held sufficient to go to the jury.

2. Where a railroad company ratified and undertook to perform a contract for the transportation of goods made by a local agent in violation of its rule, which required advance payment of freight, and accepted in lieu thereof a deposit of the amount at the point of destination, it was bound to perform such contract.

Appeal from superior court, Vance county; Winston, Judge.

Action by Albert N. Porter against the Raleigh & Gaston Railroad Company. From a judgment in favor of defendant, plaintiff appeals. Reversed.

T. M. Pittman, for appellant.

J. H. Bridgers, for appellee.

MONTGOMERY, J. The plaintiff brought this action to recover damages of the defendant company on account of alleged negligence on its part in failing to ship on its railroad certain household goods and furniture belonging to the plaintiff. He, at the time of the alleged negligence, was living in Illinois. One of his friends in Henderson, N. C., at his request, carried the goods and furniture to the agent of the defendant company in that town, to be shipped to the plaintiff at his home in Illinois. Prepayment of the freight charges was demanded by the company's agent, and that demand was not complied with.

The plaintiff introduced evidence tending to show that in a conversation between the station agent and the plaintiff's agent, it was agreed that upon the payment by the plaintiff of the amount of the freight charges —about $50—to the railroad agent, at Alexis in Illinois (agent of Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railway Company), the defendant would at once ship the goods upon the defendant's being notified of the deposit; that the plaintiff was notified of the arrangement, and on the 19th or 20th of July, 1900, the required amount was paid to the agent at Alexis by the plaintiff; that on the same day J. G. Cantrell, the general western agent of the defendant company, was properly notified of the transaction by H. D. Mack, division freight and passenger agent of the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railway Company, Alexis, 111., being in his division; that Mack on the same day, July 20th, by telegram, informed the agent at Alexis that he might advise Porter that the necessary steps had been taken towards having his goods forwarded; that, on the 23d of July, Cantrell notified the general freight agent of the defendant company of the whole arrange ment, with request to forward the shipment of the goods from Henderson to Alexis; that the defendant did not repudiate the agreement, but took steps to carry it out; that the goods were never shipped, but were consumed in the burning of the warehouse of the defendant company on the 26th of July.

His honor was of opinion...