St. Louis Southwestern Railway Company v. Matiatas
| Decision Date | 02 January 1911 |
| Citation | 133 S.W. 600,97 Ark. 206 |
| Parties | ST. LOUIS SOUTHWESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY v. MATIATAS |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Pulaski Circuit Court; F. Guy Fulk, Judge; affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
S. H West and Bridges, Wooldridge & Gantt, for appellant.
1. Appellant would not be bound by the statement furnished by the section foreman to the plaintiff, and it was improperly admitted in evidence. His authority as agent must appear from the evidence. 27 Ill.App. 412; Id. 572; 1 Greenleaf Ev. (15 ed.) 173, note (a); 63 Ark. 87, 93; 78 Ark. 381-7; 58 Ark. 168, 179; 67 Ark. 147, 152. "Declarations or admissions of an agent not made at the time of the occurrence or transaction to which they relate, and not expressly authorized by his principal, are not competent evidence against his principal unless they are so immediately connected with the transaction in point of time and circumstance as in fact to constitute a part thereof." 3 Am. & Eng. Ann. Cases, 621; 13 Id. 859; 14 Ark. 86 105-7; 68 Ark. 225; 49 Ark. 207.
2. Before appellant can be held liable as garnishee, it must have had actual knowledge that the parties to whom it was indebted were the same as those sued by the appellee. 14 Am. & Eng. Enc. of L. 844; 20 Cyc. 1046; 156 Mass. 1; Rood on Garnishment, § 266; Shinn on Att. & Gar., § 603; Waples on Att. & Gar. (2 ed.), § 927; 58 N.H. 89; 125 Mass. 560; 5 Col. App. 427.
Manning & Emerson, for appellee.
1. The section foreman's statement was properly admitted. The circumstances and appellant's own evidence show that it was the duty of this forman to keep a correct list of all the laborers under him, their names, hours of labor, etc. A wrong having been committed by appellant or its employees without fault or negligence on the part of appellee, the loss should fall upon appellant. 108 P. 595.
2. The question as to whether or not appellant had notice that the parties to whom it was indebted were the same as those sued by the appellee was submitted to the jury under proper instructions, and their finding is conclusive. 20 Cyc. 1126. Moreover, the knowledge of appellant's agent, the section foreman, will be imputed to it. 151 N.Y. 1; 45 N.E. 355; 36 L. R. A. 658; 112 N.Y. 637; 20 N.E. 566; 99 Ala. 379; 13 So. 112. "Notice sufficient to put one on inquiry is notice of all that such inquiry would lead to." 99 Ala. 493; 12 So. 572; 19 L. R. A. 705; 16 R. I. 710; 19 A. 369.
Appellant, St. Louis Southwestern Railway Company, employed J. Spiedognokis and nineteen other Greeks as section hands, and put them to work on a section at or near Roe, Arkansas, on the line of appellant's railroad. These men constituted what was called "Extra Gang No. 11," and were led by one of them named Tareas as interpreter, he being the only one that could speak English. They worked there for appellant during July and August, 1909. These men were furnished to appellant by O'Brien, a labor agent. They were indebted to appellee, Gabriel Matiatas, who instituted separate actions against each of them before a justice of the peace of Pulaski County, and sued out writs of garnishment to be served on appellant railway company. Judgments were rendered in favor of appellee against said defendants, and also, on a trial of the issue made by the answer of the garnishee and the reply of the plaintiff, judgments were rendered against the garnishee for the amount of plaintiff's debt. On appeal to the circuit court of Pulaski County all the cases were consolidated, and the trial resulted in judgment against appellant as garnishee for $ 533, the aggregate amount of appellee's claims against all of said defendants.
After the service of the writs of garnishment, but before trial and before an answer had been filed, appellant railway company, through its regular channels, paid for the labor of these men by checks, but the names were reported by the section foreman, with the exception of one of them, Tareas, different from the way they appeared in the writs of garnishment. The defense of the garnishee is that the men were paid without knowledge of the identity of the parties named in the writs of garnishment. There is testimony, however, tending to show that counsel for appellee, before the payments were made, called the attention of appellant's counsel to the fact that the garnishment was against the men who worked in Extra Gang No. 11 at Roe or Ulm, Arkansas. The evidence also establishes the fact that these men were delivered to the railway company under the names set forth in the writs of garnishment, and that their names so appeared on the time book of the section foreman who worked them.
The principal contention is that the court erred in permitting appellee to testify that the list of names in the writs of garnishment were copied from the time book by the section foreman in his hands and delivered to him. The contention is that it was not within the scope of the employment of the section foreman, Melton, to give out the list, and that he could not bind the company in doing that. We think, however, that the evidence was competent for the purpose of showing that these men actually worked for the railroad company under the names mentioned in the writs of garnishment. Appellee testified that the section foreman copied the names from his time book, and he produced before the jury the list of names which had been so copied. If these men actually worked for the railroad company under the names mentioned in the writs of garnishment, which the evidence tends to show was the fact, and those were their correct names, then the company would be responsible, even though the agent had reported the wrong names. It was within the scope of the section foreman's employment to report the time of the laborers in his gang; and if he reported the wrong names and thereby misled his principal, the latter must be the sufferer, and not the adverse party who has sued his debtors under their correct names and caused them to be identified in the writs of garnishment. For this reason, we think that the instructions given at the instance of appellee, and objected to by appellant, were correct.
For instance, objection is made to the second instruction, to the effect that if said defendants were in the employ of the railway company, and the company was indebted to them...
To continue reading
Request your trial