Pruitt v. Watson
| Decision Date | 10 May 1927 |
| Docket Number | 5907. |
| Citation | 138 S.E. 331,103 W.Va. 627 |
| Parties | PRUITT v. WATSON et al. |
| Court | West Virginia Supreme Court |
Submitted May 3, 1927.
Syllabus by the Court.
An agent intrusted with the possession and care of his master's property and responsible for its safe-keeping has the implied power to do anything reasonably necessary to that end, and the master is liable for personal injury wrongfully inflicted by his agent in the execution of his powers.
But the master is not liable for any wrongs or injuries inflicted by his agent done outside of his employment, as for assault or arrest, and the purpose simply of vindicating the law, unless the master is present directing or approving the acts and conduct of the agent; the agent is himself personally liable to the injured person for wrongs or injuries inflicted outside the scope of his authority.
An agent cannot be said to be acting within the scope of his agency if the act complained of if done by the master would be unlawful.
Error to Circuit Court, McDowell County.
Action by Fleecy Pruitt against Ira A. Watson and another, partners doing business as the Watson Bargain Store, begun in a court of a justice of the peace. From a judgment for plaintiff defendants appealed to the circuit court, which rendered judgment for plaintiff, and defendants bring error. Judgment reversed, demurrer to plaintiff's evidence sustained, and judgment entered for defendants.
Sanders, Crockett, Fox & Sanders, of Bluefield, for plaintiffs in error.
Froe Capehart & Miller and Fleming A. Jones, Jr., all of Welch, for defendant in error.
On demurrer by the defendants to the evidence, the jury returned a verdict of three hundred dollars damages, subject to the law of the case to be determined by the court. Having found the law to be for the plaintiff, the court pronounced the judgment in her favor against the defendants for three hundred dollars and costs, now complained of.
The suit was begun before a justice of the peace of McDowell county, and from the adverse judgment of the justice against them defendants appealed to the circuit court, with the result already indicated.
There were no pleadings except the summons in the justice's court, which ran against Ira A. Watson and F. F. Watson, partners doing business under the style and firm name of Watson Bargain Store, reciting as the cause of action damages for a wrong.
As developed by the evidence on both sides there seems to be no substantial conflict in the material facts proven, that the plaintiff while shopping in defendants' store, on Saturday night July 25, 1925, accompanied by her small child a girl, was observed by three or four lady clerks, Rose Ferrell, Mollie Poe, and Susie Paisley, and perhaps others, to be acting strangely, as they thought; and by Mrs. Ferrell she was seen to fold up some little dresses in a small package and put them under her arm, and go towards the door; and as she was leaving Mrs. Ferrell went forward, caught her by the arm, brought her back and rescued the goods, and turned her over to Mr. Crockett, the store manager, reporting to him what had occurred. Plaintiff herself admits her presence in the store and her possession there of the goods, as related by the other witnesses, but says that she had picked them up with the intention of paying for them and had the money with her to do so, and had no intention of stealing them. The goods then recovered and turned over to the clerks were all the goods found. No further search was made. Plaintiff willingly delivered up the goods and started for the door with the intention of leaving, but all the while was detained by the clerks and the store manager, Mr. Crockett, awaiting the police officer who had been sent for. She did succeed in escaping through the door, however, and out onto the sidewalk, but was pursued by Crockett, who held her by the arm and pushed her back into the store, where she was detained until the officer arrived and took her into custody and conveyed her before a justice of the peace, where a formal complaint was made, charging her with the theft of the goods, but with what result the evidence does not show. Her complaint was that she was handled roughly by Crockett; that he struck and pushed her...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nees v. Julian Goldman Stores, Inc.
... ... In ... support of the ruling of the trial court counsel for the ... defendant place much reliance on the case of Pruitt v ... Watson, 103 W.Va. 627, 138 S.E. 331, wherein it is said ... in point 3 of the syllabus: "An agent cannot be said to ... be acting within ... ...
-
Nees v. Julian Goldman Stores, Inc.
...law therein contained should be considered and interpreted in the light of the circumstances of the case in which it was pronounced (Pruitt v. Watson, supra). In the opinion the writer of this opinion, the third point of syllabus in Pruitt v. Watson, 103 W.Va. 627, 138 S.E. 331, is too broa......
-
McDermott v. W.T. Grant Co.
...appear to be to the contrary. Staples v. Schmid, 18 R. I. 224. Mosely v. J. G. McCrory Co. of West Virginia, 101 W.Va. 480. Pruitt v. Watson, 103 W.Va. 627. McCrory Corp. v. Satchell, 148 Md. 279. We need not discuss these cases, for in the present case there was evidence that the authority......
-
Porter v. South Penn Oil Co.
... ... decisions are not entirely clear as to how far a master is ... liable for an assault committed by his servant. In Pruitt ... v. Watson, 103 W.Va. 627, 138 S.E. 331, this court held ... that: "An agent cannot be said to be acting within [125 ... W.Va. 365] the scope ... ...