The Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Chicago and St. Louis Railway Company v. Racer

• Decision Date: 25 April 1894
• Docket Number: 1,109
• Parties: THE PITTSBURGH, CINCINNATI, CHICAGO AND ST. LOUIS RAILWAY COMPANY v. RACER ET AL
• Court: Indiana Appellate Court

37 N.E. 280

10 Ind.App. 503

THE PITTSBURGH, CINCINNATI, CHICAGO AND ST. LOUIS RAILWAY COMPANY v. RACER ET AL

1,109

Court of Appeals of Indiana

April 25, 1894

Reported at: 10 Ind.App. 503 at 506.

From the Blackford Circuit Court.

Judgment affirmed.

N. O Ross and G. E. Ross, for appellant.

J Cantwell, S.W. Cantwell, H. Brownlee and H. J. Paulus, for appellees.

OPINION

GAVIN, J.

The appellees sued to recover damages for appellant's failure to furnish cars to transport certain live stock. The pleadings are set out in a former report of the case of Pittsburgh, etc., R. W. Co. v. Racer, 5 Ind.App. 209, 31 N.E. 853.

The only questions presented to this court relate to the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the special findings of the court upon which conclusions of law were declared in favor of the appellees.

The principal questions of law involved in this appeal have been settled by the former decision of this court, wherein it is declared that "if a shipper's order to a common carrier of live stock for a designated number of cars, to be furnished at a station indicated, on a day mentioned in the future, for the transportation of such stock, be accepted by the carrier, such agreement would constitute a contract binding on the company to furnish the cars and upon the shipper to furnish the stock to load them."

The evidence fairly justified the finding of the trial court that appellant, by its agent, agreed to furnish the cars on the day named. It does not necessarily follow, from the mere fact that such a contract by him was unauthorized, that it was not binding upon the appellant. Its agent was placed in full charge of its station. He was the sole medium for the transaction of appellant's business with the public, at the place in question. The appellees had been in the habit of ordering cars from him and of having their orders duly filled. They had no knowledge of the limitations upon his power to contract for cars. The contract was an apparently reasonable one. While there may be some conflict on some of these propositions, there was evidence fairly supporting each of them, and taken together they bring this case far within the rule as laid down by the authorities upon this subject.

The public in dealing with the agent thus acting within the apparent scope of his authority, have the right to rely upon his apparent authority, notwithstanding some unknown limitations upon it. Easton v. Dudley, 78 Tex. 236, 14 S.W. 583; Gulf, etc., R. W. Co. v. Wright (Tex.), 21 S.W. 80; Wood v. Chicago, etc., R. W. Co., 68 Iowa 491, 27 N.W. 473; Deming v. Grand Trunk R. R. Co., 48 N.H. 455; Pruitt v. Hannibal, etc., R. R. Co., 62 Mo. 527; Harrison v. Missouri, etc., R. W. Co., 74 Mo. 364; Hutchinson Carriers, section 319.

Mechem on Agency, section 396, declares the law to be that "A railway station agent authorized to receive and forward freight has implied authority to contract to furnish a certain number of cattle cars at his station on a...