Crosswaith v. Thomason

Supreme Court of Colorado

Crosswaith v. Thomason

35 P.2d 849, 95 Colo. 240, 1934 Colo. LEXIS 296

CourtSupreme Court of Colorado

DecidedJune 25, 1934

DocketNo. 13,052.

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 35 P.2d 849 (Crosswaith v. Thomason) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Colorado primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Crosswaith v. Thomason, 35 P.2d 849, 95 Colo. 240, 1934 Colo. LEXIS 296 (Colo. 1934).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice Bouck

delivered the opinion of the court.

Crosswaith, plaintiff in error here, is the same person who appears as plaintiff in error in Crosswaith v. Bergin, No. 13,053, just decided (95 Colo. 241), to which reiference is hereby made. The present case is similar to the latter, and the proceeding’s were identical. The defendant in error Thomason was the proprietor of the restaurant whereof Bergin as cashier was at least temporarily in charg’e. Consequently Bergin was Thomason’s agent. The two cases were consolidated for trial in the county *241 court, but were docketed as separate proceedings in error here. Tbe same abstract of tbe record and tbe same briefs apply to both cases, and these were argued together.

Ordinarily a principal is liable for the torts of his agent committed in the course of the principal’s business and within the scope of the agent’s authority. The burden is on a principal to show facts which take him out of the rule.

Judgment reversed and cause remanded for a new trial.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Mr. Justice Bouck

delivered the opinion of the court.

Crosswaith, plaintiff in error here, is the same person who appears as plaintiff in error in Crosswaith v. Bergin, No. 13,053, just decided (95 Colo. 241), to which reiference is hereby made. The present case is similar to the latter, and the proceeding’s were identical. The defendant in error Thomason was the proprietor of the restaurant whereof Bergin as cashier was at least temporarily in charg’e. Consequently Bergin was Thomason’s agent. The two cases were consolidated for trial in the county *241 court, but were docketed as separate proceedings in error here. Tbe same abstract of tbe record and tbe same briefs apply to both cases, and these were argued together.

Ordinarily a principal is liable for the torts of his agent committed in the course of the principal’s business and within the scope of the agent’s authority. The burden is on a principal to show facts which take him out of the rule.

Judgment reversed and cause remanded for a new trial.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

35 P.2d 849, 95 Colo. 240, 1934 Colo. LEXIS 296, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/crosswaith-v-thomason-colo-1934.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack