St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad v. Daugherty

Supreme Court of Kansas

St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad v. Daugherty

83 P. 821, 72 Kan. 678, 1905 Kan. LEXIS 400

CourtSupreme Court of Kansas

DecidedDecember 9, 1905

DocketNo. 14,344

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 83 P. 821 (St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad v. Daugherty) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Kansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad v. Daugherty, 83 P. 821, 72 Kan. 678, 1905 Kan. LEXIS 400 (kan 1905).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam,:

In this case the testimony of the attorney for the plaintiff was doubtless sufficient, even though it was very slight, to show that W. B. Spaulding was the general claim agent, and J. L. Gaston the assistant claim agent, of the defendant. The scope of the authority of the claim agent and assistant claim agent of a railway corporation is not, however, defined by the law, and if put in issue must be proved as a matter of fact. Here the authority of the officials named to make the settlement relied upon as the plaintiff’s cause of action was denied under oath, and there is no evidence of such authority in the record. It is true that the conduct of the officials named may appear to be inexplicable except upon the supposition that they had authority. Agency, however, cannot be proved by the acts or declaration of the agent except under special contingencies not here involved. The fact of authority must appear before the conduct of the agent can be shown to bind the principal. This being true, the judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded for a new trial.

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

Per Curiam,:

In this case the testimony of the attorney for the plaintiff was doubtless sufficient, even though it was very slight, to show that W. B. Spaulding was the general claim agent, and J. L. Gaston the assistant claim agent, of the defendant. The scope of the authority of the claim agent and assistant claim agent of a railway corporation is not, however, defined by the law, and if put in issue must be proved as a matter of fact. Here the authority of the officials named to make the settlement relied upon as the plaintiff’s cause of action was denied under oath, and there is no evidence of such authority in the record. It is true that the conduct of the officials named may appear to be inexplicable except upon the supposition that they had authority. Agency, however, cannot be proved by the acts or declaration of the agent except under special contingencies not here involved. The fact of authority must appear before the conduct of the agent can be shown to bind the principal. This being true, the judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded for a new trial.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

83 P. 821, 72 Kan. 678, 1905 Kan. LEXIS 400, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/st-louis-san-francisco-railroad-v-daugherty-kan-1905.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack