Reynolds v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co.

• Citation: 90 S.W. 100,114 Mo. App. 670
• Court: Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
• Decision Date: 06 November 1905
• Parties: REYNOLDS v. CHICAGO, B. & Q. R. CO.

90 S.W. 100

114 Mo. App. 670

REYNOLDS v. CHICAGO, B. & Q. R. CO.

Kansas City Court of Appeals. Missouri.

November 6, 1905.

1. PRINCIPAL AND AGENT — AUTHORITY OF AGENTS—SCOPE.

Where a railroad claim agent visited injured persons, employed doctors, and consulted with them as to the condition, and treatment of the injured, and the railroad paid for the services of such doctors, the jury could find that the agent, when he employed and agreed to pay a certain doctor for his attendance on an injured person, was acting within the scope of his authority.

2. SAME—RESTRICTIONS ON AUTHORITY—EFFECT ON THIRD PERSONS.

Restrictions imposed by the principal on the ostensible authority of the agent have no effect on the rights of third persons, who have no knowledge of such restrictions.

3. PHYSICIANS—CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT.

Where a railroad's claim agent, within his authority, agreed to pay a physician for his services to an injured person, it was immaterial, on the question of the railroad's liability, whether such agreement was made with the physician or with the injured person, and whether the agent employed the physician to render the services in the first place.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Gentry County; William C. Ellison, Judge.

Action by M. S. Reynolds against the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Peery & Lyons and C. H. S. Goodman, for appellant. McCullough, Aleshire & Showen, for respondent.

BROADDUS, P. J.

On the 20th day of May, 1902, one R. B. Coffey, while a passenger on defendant's train, was injured in a wreck near Albany, Gentry county, Mo. The agent of the station caused him to be moved to a hotel in said town and sent for physicians to attend his injuries. About five days thereafter, Coffey sent for the plaintiff, his family physician, to consult with the doctors already in attendance in reference to his treatment and removal to his home in King City, about 17 miles distant. Previously, however, one Ballew, who was the stock agent of defendant, had been to see Coffey and had consulted with the doctors in attendance, and had joined in the said request of Coffey for plaintiff for said consultation. Plaintiff treated Coffey for his injuries for about 30 days while he was at Albany, when he was removed to his home in King City, after which time he was his regular attending physician. On the 8th day of July, one Maj. Wood, who claimed to have authority to adjust claims against defendant for personal injuries, saw Coffey at King City, and made inquiries as to the kind of care he was receiving and the treatment that plaintiff was administering to him. Wood saw Coffey more than once after he was moved to King City, at one of which times, when the question came up who was to pay plaintiff for his services, he said: "We pay all bills." At one time plaintiff had a conversation with a Mr. Dickens, the station agent of defendant at King City, in which he said to the agent that he was not satisfied with the progress made by Coffey, and that he wished a consultation in the case. The agent referred him to Wood, and Wood came to King City. Coffey compromised his claim against defendant for $2,500, but, in so doing, he did not include the medical bill of the plaintiff. At the time of the said compromise, plaintiff was summoned to St. Joseph, Mo., where the settlement was consummated. Plaintiff was sent for to confer with Dr. Geiger, defendant's general physician and surgeon, and other doctors in reference to Coffey's injuries. Wood, for his services and expenses in that matter, as agent of the defendant, allowed and paid them. The defendant introduced no evidence, and, at the close of plaintiff's testimony, offered a demurrer to his case, which the court overruled. The jury, under the instructions of the court, returned a verdict for the plaintiff in the sum of $478, upon which judgment was rendered, and defendant appealed.

It is contended that there is no evidence to show that Wood or any...