Sourwine v. McRoy Clay Works

• Decision Date: 13 October 1908
• Docket Number: No. 6,464.,6,464.
• Citation: 42 Ind.App. 358,85 N.E. 782
• Parties: SOURWINE v. McROY CLAY WORKS et al.
• Court: Indiana Appellate Court

42 Ind.App. 358

85 N.E. 782

SOURWINE

v.McROY CLAY WORKS et al.

No. 6,464.

Appellate Court of Indiana, Division No. 2.

Oct. 13, 1908.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Clay County; P. O. Colliver, Judge.

Action by John D. Sourwine against the McRoy Clay Works and another. From a judgment for defendants on demurrer to the complaint, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

G. S. Payne and A. C. Miller, for appellant. S. M. McGregor, for appellees.

ROBY, J.

This is an action by a physician against a manufacturing corporation to recover for professional services rendered an employé of the corporation at the request of the corporation's superintendent. It is alleged, among other things, “that on or about the 27th day of October, 1904, the said defendant Edward R. Beidler, superintendent of the said McRoy Clay Works, represented to this plaintiff that he was the authorized agent of the said defendant McRoy Clay Works, and that as such agent he had authority to employ and engage this plaintiff to do and perform certain services for his principal, the said McRoy Clay Works. Plaintiff says that, relying upon the said representations, and believing the said Edward R. Beidler to be then and there the duly authorized agent of the said defendant McRoy Clay Works, he did on said day enter into an agreement with the said Edward R. Beidler that in consideration of reasonable compensation, to be made by the McRoy Clay Works, this plaintiff agreed to do and perform certain services, to wit, to attend and treat one Ben Hendrix, an employé of said defendant McRoy Clay works; that relying upon said representations, and so believing said defendant Edward R. Beidler to be the duly authorized agent of said defendant McRoy Clay Works, he did on said day and on divers days thereafter fully perform and complete the said services, a bill of particulars of all of which said services is filed herewith and marked ‘Exhibit A,’ and made a part hereof; that the said services so performed by this plaintiff were of the value of $55.50.” Further averments show a demand and refusal to pay, and judgment for the amount stated is prayed “against the said defendant McRoy Clay Works, and, if the said defendant Edward R. Beidler had no authority in fact as its agent to employ this plaintiff, then he asks judgment in the sum of $55.50 against the said defendant Edward R. Beidler.” Separate demurrers for want of facts by the McRoy Clay Works and Edward R. Beidler, defendants, were sustained to the single paragraph of complaint, and the plaintiff appeals. Error is assigned in sustaining each of the demurrers.

The contract set up is valid only if the “facts leading up to it were so unusual and extreme as to impose upon the employer a duty analogous to that imposed upon railroad companies.” Facts of this character are not set up in the complaint. The law is entirely well settled. Corporations whose “business is stationary” are under no duty “to furnish their workmen with medical services, any more than they should be required to furnish them with their dinner.” Cushman v. Cloverdale Coal & Mining...