New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1873-04-13
COURT RECORD.
SATURDAY, APRIL II, 1873.
Superior District Court.

Superior District Court.
Thomas LYNNE VS.. city of New Orleans 90
Judment for plaintiff for 1912. with iEtero
| est and costs of suit.
Edward T. Manning VS.. city of Nev O!.
| leans.-Judgmen for defendant.
| Slaughterhouse Company vs. Dominique
| Gerger ct as.-Rule for contempt Il
| sluughterlng cattle in places other than the
| sheds of the company. Judgment against
the defendants of fine OF $50 eacho an! ~.
| prisonment for twenty-tour hours
| Fifth District Court.
| Eorter Peterson & Feuner vs.. Merchartc'
| Mutual Insurance Company. -Ihe facts 6s
the case are sufficiently indicated III the
| following extracts from the opinion OF
Judge CullOm:
| That the entries for the insurance on :bs
steamer were made abouts fifteen MINUTES
before nine, and before the officer or any OK
them had reached the office. That the
| book keeper Endorsed the policy for &C.
! conmodatiOn. without beng authorized to
! do SO. That as soon as he was informed Oh
| the entries, the president demonstrated, de.
clined to take the risk, and sent note -
plaintiffs notifying them to that eItec.
That plaintiff refused to permit the ecaSITe
of the entries.
That the business hours Of the company
are from nine to three, but that sometime.
thew open their office from , 10 J.. NJ,
always posting notice III the office.
Now, what are the legal consequences q.
the entry made by tine book-keeper. PLAIN
tits say they acted in good fdIth. rot kn0ws
ing anything about the loss of the steamer.
and that but for the said entry they might
have effected insurance in New York,
although the vessel was four days past due.
The company deny that IL Lis bound by
the acts OF the book-keeper, rs he acted
without authority before business hours. II
the absence of all the officers OF the cCIn.
panv, and when it was known 70 the pres..
dent that the vessel had persisted. That t
was not the act of the book-keeper tia:
bound the company but the ratification c:
lis proper officers.
The question is difficult one, ana p"Is
.ents difficulties not easily overcome.
The first question is: Can the book -keepeR
be regarded under the circumstance -
agent of the company!
Second-Did he act iii euch9 within the
scope of his customary or delegated aEIbCf~
ity in making the entry9
On these questions hangs Nhe snI.Ce
merits of this case.
First-Was the book-keeper the duly ga,
:horzed agent of the company
Agents may be appointed by sApr".s
word. to that effect, or the agency may 10
implied or inferred from circumstances. IN
this case there was no express appointment.
Whenever the agency il left to be inferred
from circumstances. lis implication il based
on the presumpsiVe consent @! the prince
pal.
The ratification by The principal, o: Al
act performed by an agent, necessarily pre-
supposes that the act done by him was
without competent authority from ha prIn-
cipal, else there could DE no necessity t"i =
ratification. Long acquiescences without
objection, will in many eases amount 70 .
ratification OF an unauthorized act. -
where an agency actually exists the silence
OF the principal will sometimes give rise to
q presumption of Notifications: but IN such
cases much will depend Gn the relations CT
the parties and the usage. of trade.
IL is proved that it has not bees tie
custom to make entries on policies outsids
of the usual business hours. They are
shown to be from nine TO three. am
clearly of opinion that the Application and
entry were both made ivregularly. having
been acted on simultaneously. ~ 81 tho
agency of the bOokkecper. il may b. re-
marked that there is IL" positive or reason
able proof that the company ever author
ICED him 10 perform tue duties OF marine
clerk. by a subsequent ratification Q: liza
acts as such.
The act binds en- Insurance. company
done by an official actually or constructive.
~ empowered to do it. or by one whom the
customer has d right to believe has r!gt.e
to do it.
The book s.ecper was rot authorized 20
intorsc risks, aud is not shown to have te";
held out by the company at any time a. he
officer delegated with power and authority
Of marine clerk
Again. it was cout-nied tia. pia,a' is
did not receive notic- IF the rejection o! ih4
risk until late in the day. and that hG. 90
The delay they might have effected an ,n.s
rance in New York.
In answer to this il is sutiicien: :. .av
tina. the delay resulted from, their oWu i:.
mature application. Cor had it been lu..Le
III office hours and to the proper "f!ic":- i..s
answer would doubtless have been p:"Irvs
and based upon the information previously
obtained by them of the loss Of the s.e.iNee
II were improper to permit plaintiffs !e :akS
the benefit III their own wrongs.
aud again It is shown that. owing :" she
entire irreguarity of the time and pers":s
through whom the entries were made. tn@
attention OF The president was not called 10
the transaction until three or four hours
after the applicant had Jeff the O1fiC" Ins
proof is that the president gave notice %
his refn-a! to take the risk as soon 81 10
was Informed of what had been d2n.. f!W
could not have done more. judgments 30