Richmond, F. & P.R. Co. v. Snead

• Decision Date: 08 March 1869
• Court: Virginia Supreme Court
• Parties: RICH. FRED. & POT. R. R. CO. v. SNEAD & SMITH.

60 Va. 354

RICH. FRED. & POT. R. R. CO. v. SNEAD & SMITH.

Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia.

March 8, 1869

(Absent MONCURE ^[a1] P.)

1. R the president of a railroad company, signs his name without any addition, to a due bill, acknowledging that there is due to S. & S. $484, in full of labor performed on cottage lot of the railroad company. It being uncertain on the face of the note, whether the labor was performed for R. or the company, parol evidence is admissible to ascertain that fact.

2. The authority of the president of a railroad company to make contracts for necessary labor for the company, is incident to his office. And he may furuish evidence of the amount payable under the contract, either before or after the service, and put that evidence, in his discretion, into the form of a due bill or promissory note; unless such power is restricted by special legislation, or by regulations of the company known to the other contracting party.

3. Where the question in the appellate court, is, whether a verdict is contrary to the evidence, where the ultimate facts upon which the legal conclusion in the case must rest, are to be deduced by balancing the different facts proved, and by weighing and comparing the inferences to be drawn from them respect should be paid to the verdict and judgment of the court below.

This was an action of assumpsit in the Circuit court of the city of Richmond, brought by Joseph H. Snead and Benj. E. Smith late partners, against the Richmond, Fredericksburg & Potomac Railroad Company, to recover the hires of slaves which the plaintiffs alleged were employed by the company. The declaration contained only the common counts.

Upon the trial the question in dispute was, whether the slaves had been hired by Edwin Robinson, who was at the time the president of the company, for himself or for the company. The jury found a verdict for the plaintiffs, for the sum of four hundred and eighty-four dollars, with interest thereon from the 21st of May 1856 till paid; and the defendants thereupon moved the court for a new trial on the ground that the verdict was contrary to the evidence; but the court overruled the motion, and rendered a judgment on the verdict; and the defendants excepted, and obtained a supersedeas. The material facts, as they appeared to this court, are stated by Judge Joynes in his opinion.

Where the question in the appellate court is whether a verdict is contrary to the evidence, where the ultimate facts upon which the legal conclusion in the case must rest are to be deduced by balancing the different facts proved, and by weighing and comparing the inferences to be drawn from them, respect should be paid to the verdict and judgment of the court below.

Steger & Sands, for the appellants.

Lyons & August, for the appellees.

JOYNES J.

This is an action of assumpsit by Snead and Smith against the Richmond, Fredericksburg & Potomac Railroad Company, to recover for certain work and labor performed by the slaves of the plaintiffs. The declaration contains only the common counts. And the principal question is, whether the money claimed by the plaintiffs is due from the railroad company or from Edwin Robinson, who was president of the company at the time the work was done. The jury found a verdict for the plaintiffs; and the court overruled a motion of the defendants for a new trial. The bill of exceptions certifies the facts found on the trial. Such was the obvious intention of the certificate, and I perceive no inconsistency between any of the " facts" certified. It is not enough, however, that a bill should purport, by its terms, to certify " the facts proved," if such is really not the substance of what is certified. Vaiden's case, 12 Gratt. 717.

The plaintiffs gave in evidence the following paper, the body and signature of which were proved to be in the handwriting of Robinson, the president of the company, and which was given by him to one of the plaintiffs upon a settlement for the work, which is the ground of the present claim:

" Richmond, May 31, 1856.

$484. Due Joseph H. Snead and Benjamin E. Smith four hundred and eighty-four dollars, in full, of labor performed on cottage lot of the railroad company, the same payable on demand, with interest from date.

Ed. Robinson. "

It does not distinctly appear, from the terms of this paper, whether it was designed to acknowledge a debt due by Robinson, who signed the paper in his own name, or by the company, whose officer and agent he was, and upon whose lot the work is stated to have been done. The language is ambiguous and consistent with either view, and parol evidence of the consideration, and of the origin of the paper, is admitted to explain its meaning in this respect. Early v. Wilkinson, 9 Gratt. 68, 1 Am. Lead. Cas. 606, 3d ed., notes to Rathbone v. Budling; Nash v. Towne, 5 Wall. U. S. R. 689. That would be so, even if the action were founded on the paper itself. It is so a fortiori where the action, as in this case, is founded on the original consideration.

It was proved on the part of the plaintiffs, among other things, that they removed to Ashland, where the cottage lot is located, in the fall of 1854; that Robinson, who was the president of the railroad company, applied to the plaintiff Snead to hire the hands of the plaintiffs, and agreed to give him $1 25 a day for each of them; that during the months of November and December 1854, the hands worked under the direction of one Thompson, who was a section master upon the railroad of the defendants; that in January 1855, the hands of the plaintiff were turned over to the control and management of the plaintiff Smith, who made all the contracts for work done by them and kept the accounts; that they were seen at work under the direction of Thompson, the section master, sometimes upon the railroad of the defendants and sometimes upon the cottage lot, the property of defendants; that some of the first work done by the hands of the plaintiffs were paid for by the defendants; and that between 1852 and 1856 one Taylor was employed by said Robinson to do work upon the cottage lot of the defendants, for which work he was paid by defendants. It was further proved by the plaintiffs, that in the spring of 1856, the plaintiff Smith being about to remove from Ashland to the county of Lunenburg, the plaintiff Snead advised him to go down to Richmond and settle the accounts with the defendants; that Smith went down accordingly, and when he returned told Snead that he had taken a note with interest, but that in consequence of the action of Thompson he had been compelled to lose about $100.

These are all the material facts proved by the plaintiffs, except one or two, to be mentioned hereafter.

The defendants gave in evidence certain proceedings of the board of directors of the railroad company, and other documents connected therewith, from which the following facts appear:

In the year 1836, the railroad company purchased, for the purpose of procuring timber and wood for the use of the railroad, a tract of over 400 acres of land, on which Ashland is now situated. A cottage was subsequently built upon this land but the date of its erection does not appear, though it seems to have been erected prior to November 1852. In November 1852 the board of directors passed a resolution authorizing the president to convey a title upon payment of the purchase money, to such persons as had purchased or might purchase any portion of the lands of the company in the neighborhood of the cottage. This building was erected at the expense of the railroad company. In July 1857 the board passed a resolution reciting that the president had, under the authority conferred by the resolution of November 1852, disposed of 43 acres and a fraction, of the land, comprising lots No. 22, 23 and 24, to himself and others associated with him in the improvement known as the Hotel property, and that upon said lot No. 24, a building known as the Cottage building had been located at the expense of the company, the cost of which, with such other improvements as had been made in like manner, was to be refunded by the said purchasers, and directing a conveyance of the said property to Edwin Robinson and his associates, upon payment of the cost of such improvements and interest, to be ascertained by the treasurer and superintendent. In September 1857 a resolution was adopted appointing one arbitrator to act with another to be selected by the Ashland Hotel Company, for the purpose of ascertaining the expenses which had been incurred by the company in the erection of the cottage and other...