Southern Ry. Co. v. Brister
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi |
| Citation | 79 Miss. 761,31 So. 440 |
| Parties | SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY v. HUMPHRIES & BRISTER |
| Decision Date | 26 November 1901 |
31 So. 440
79 Miss. 761
SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY
v.
HUMPHRIES & BRISTER
Supreme Court of Mississippi
November 26, 1901
FROM the circuit court of Leflore county. HON. FRANK E. LARKIN, Judge.
Humphries & Brister, appellants, were plaintiffs in the court below; the railway company, appellee, was defendant there. The opinion states the facts.
Affirmed.
Catchings & Catchings, for appellant.
It is well settled that the employment of a physician or surgeon is not ordinarily within the scope of the authority of a subordinate agent or employe, though there may be extreme cases giving authority to employ one. The roadmaster has no such authority. Louisville R. R. Co. v. McKay, 98 Ind. 391. Nor has a section foreman. Tucker v. St. Louis R R. Co., 54 Mo. 177. Nor has a yard master. Marquette R. R. Co. v. Taft, 28 Mich. 289. Nor has a station master. Cox v. Midland R. R. Co., 3 Each., 268. Nor has a company's solicitor. St. Louis, A. & T. R. R. v. Hoover, 53 Ark. 377. Nor a company's surgeon. Mayberry v. Chicago R. R. Co., 75 Mo. 492; Terre Haute R. R. Co., v. Brown, 107 Ind. 336. Nor a company's engineer. Cooper v. N. Y. Central R. R Co., 13 N.Y.S. 276. Nor a conductor. St. Louis R. R. Co. v. Hoover, 53 Ark. 377.
An emergency calling for immediate action in order to save life, or prevent suffering, may be sufficient to confer authority upon a subordinate to employ necessary surgical aid, if he is the highest representative of the company on the ground. Terre Haute. R. R. Co. v. McMurray, 98 Ind. 358.
There may be cases of immediate urgency, when the agent may cause to be rendered those imperative services which the dictates of justice and humanity would indicate to the servant injured, and to take such measure as would prevent needless suffering and loss of life. Marquette R. R. Co. v. Taft, 28 Mich. 289.
The authority of a subordinate agent, however, arises only with the emergency which makes it necessary for him to possess it, and ends with such emergency. Louisville R. R. Co. v. Smith, 121 Ind. 353.
And neither a conductor, a road master, a section agent, a station agent, nor the company's physician, can bind it by a contract for nursing and care bestowed on an employe during a protracted illness. Indianapolis R. R. Co. v. Norris, 67 Ill. 295; Louisville R. R. Co. v. Smith, 121 Ind. 353; Louisville R. R. Co. v. McVay, 98 Ind. 391; Atlantic R. R. Co. v. Reisner, 18 Kan. 458; Mayberry v. Chicago R. R. Co., 75 Mo. 492.
In the case of officers and superior agents having general authority to enter into such contracts for the company, authority to procure care and medical attendance of an injured employe has been held to be incident to such general authority. Accordingly, it has been held that the general manager, or the general superintendent, or the assistant superintendent, having general supervising authority over the interests of the railroad company, possesses authority to make such contracts on behalf of the company. Atlantic R. R. Co. v. Reisner, 18 Kan. 458; Louisville R. R. Co. v. McVay, 98 Ind. 391; Cincinnati R. R. Co. v. Davis, 126 Ind. 99; Terre Haute R. R. Co. v. Stockwell, 118 Ind. 98; Atchison R. R. Co. v. Reecher, 24 Kan. 228; Cairo Co. v. Mahoney, 82 Ill. 73; Bigham v. Chicago R. R. Co., 79 Iowa 354.
We respectfully submit that a train master is not such a general officer as any of those above described, and that, in the absence of proof that he had the power of a general officer in this regard, the plaintiffs below were not entitled to recover. The only testimony as to his authority is that of Mr. Dunn, who said: "He has control of the handling of the trains, and of employes of trains, except engineers and firemen," and also that he employed operators.
We respectfully insist that the testimony does not show that the train master had any authority to make any contract at all for the employment of a surgeon. If he had authority, under any...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Columbus & Greenville Ry. Co. v. Mississippi Clinic, 27589
...Cotton Mills, 101 So. 495; Dunlop v. Hearn, 37 Miss. 471; Atwood v. Meridit, 37 Miss. 635. See, also, So. Ry. Co. v. Brister et al., 79 Miss. 761, 31 So. 440. In the last-cited authority the railroad company was held liable for emergency treatment on the ground that the physician was employ......
-
Arbuckle v. State
...the provisions [80 Miss. 24] of these sections of the codes of 1857 and 1871, but they rely on McQuillen's case, supra, in both cases. It [31 So. 440] would seem that the court overlooked the statutes. Counsel for appellant in Cachute's case, 50 Miss. 165, do refer to the provision in the c......
-
City of Greenville v. Harvie
...nor does it show when it was served upon Mrs. Harvie. For that reason, and that reason alone, I concur in the affirmance of the decree. [79 Miss. 761] In my view, however, amendment should be allowed as to this five days' notice, if the fact be that proper notice was given, and the appellan......
-
Herring v. State, 23826
...is entitled to. See, also, Sullivan v. State, 46 So. 248; Adams v. State, 24 So. 386; Hemingway v. State, 68 Miss. 371; Arbuckle v. State, 31 So. 440. We respectfully submit that there is no reversible error in the record. OPINION [134 Miss. 508] ETHRIDGE, J. The appellant was indicted for ......