Rue v. Missouri Pac. Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 15 May 1888
• Parties: RUE v. MISSOURI PAC. RY. CO.
• Court: Texas Supreme Court

8 S.W. 533

RUE v. MISSOURI PAC. RY. CO.

Supreme Court of Texas.

May 15, 1888.

Commissioners' decision. Appeal from district court, Grayson county.

This was an action by R. H. Rue against the Missouri Pacific Railway Company to recover damages for breach of a contract of lease. There was a judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals.

Hare & Head, for appellant. R. C. Foster and A. E. Wilkinson, for appellee.

ACKER, J.

In the spring of 1881, appellant entered into a parol contract with Hill, the general freight agent of appellee, to become stock agent for appellee at a salary of $2,000 a year, and to lease from appellee its stock-yards at Vinita and Muscogee, in the Indian Territory, and at Denison and Gainesville, in Texas, for a term of five years, at the annual rental of $800 per year, payable quarterly in advance; appellee to pay him one dollar a car for loading and unloading stock, he to furnish forage for stock, to be charged against shippers, collected by appellee, and paid to him. A. A. Talmage, general manager of appellee's road, was in Denison when the contract was entered into between Hill and Rue, and assented to it. Appellant immediately entered upon the performance of his duties under the contract, both as stock agent and lessee of the yards, and soon thereafter made a contract with J. S. Talmage, brother of A. A. Talmage, by which J. S. Talmage became the owner of two-thirds interest in the stock-yards contract. On June 1, 1881, that part of the contract relating to the lease of the stock-yards was reduced to writing, and executed in the city of St. Louis, Mo., by being signed, "THE MISSOURI PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY, By A. A. TALMAGE, General Manager," and "R. H. RUE;" J. S. Talmage not appearing to be a party to the contract. Appellant continued to operate the stock-yards under his lease, paying rent, and receiving pay for his services from appellee, until in February, 1883, when he received notice from appellee to surrender the yards. Appellant refused to obey this notice, and continued to run all the yards until May 1, 1883, when appellee took forcible possession of the Denison yards, and discontinued all business at the Vinita yards. Appellant continued in possession of all yards named in the contract, except the Denison yards, and continued to operate them down to the time of the trial, and was paid by appellee for his services according to the contract, but appellee refused to receive from appellant the rents due on the contract after it took possession of the Denison yards. This suit was brought by appellant to recover damages for breach of the contract of lease by depriving him of the division yards, and discontinuing the business at the Vinita yards. The stock-yards were the property of the Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Company; appellee being lessee of the railroad, property, and franchises of that company. A. A. Talmage was appointed manager of the Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Company on December 1, 1880, and continued in the same position for appellee, when the road came into its hands. Appellant ceased to be stock agent in October, 1882. The written contract of lease executed on June 1, 1881, was offered in evidence by appellant and was objected to by appellee on the following grounds: "Because said instrument is not shown to have been executed by defendant, or by any one by it thereunto lawfully authorized, and because it is not shown to have been executed by any one authorized thereunto by writing; because it does not appear to have been executed by an officer authorized by law, and is not under the corporate seal, and no authority from defendant for its execution is shown; and because the acts shown and relied on as acts of ratification thereof were not done by any person shown to have authority to ratify said instrument; and because said acts were not shown to have been done by any person authorized by writing to...