St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1888-09-05
LIABLE FOR AGENTS. ACTS.
Against the Western Union Telegraph
Company.
AN IMPORTANT DECISION.
Judge Vanderburgh's Ideas Plainly
Expressed in Two
Suits.

An important decision was filed yes
terday in the supreme court bearing
upon the suit of Thomas NJ. McCord VS..
The Western Union Telegraph Com
pany. The facts, as set forth, were that
Dudley & Co., who resided at Grove
City, Mimi, were the agents of plaintiff
for the purchase of wheat. He resided
at Minneapolis, and was in the habit of
forwarding money to them to be used
in making such purchases in response
to kilograms sent over defendants
line and delivered to him by
it. Feb. l, 1887, the defend
ant transmitted and delivered to
plaintiff the following message: "Grove
City. MIMI, Feb. /, 1SS7.-TO T. Nc
Cord IL Co.: Send one thousand or fif-
teen hundred tomorrow. Dudley d
Co." The plaintiff in good faith acted
upon this request, and in accordance
with his custom forwarded through the
Ameri 3an Express company $1,000 in
currency. 1t turned out, however, that
this dispatch was not sent by Dudley d
Co., or with their knowledge or author
ity, but was, in fact.
FALSE AND FRAUDULENT.
and was written and sent by the agent
of the defendant at Grove City, whose
business it was to transmit messages at
that place. He was also at the same
time the agent of the American Express
company for the transaction of its bust
ness, and for long time previous to
the time mentioned had so acted for
both companies at Grove City. and was
well informed of plaintiffs method of
doing business with Dudley & Co. On
the arrival of the package by express at
Grove City containing the sum named,
1t was anticipated and abStI acted by the
agent, who converted the same to his
own use. The principal contention of the
defendant was that the corporation was
not liable for the fraudulent and tor
tiOus act of the agent in sending
the message, and that the maxim ire
spOndent superior did not apply in such
a case, because the agent in sending
the dispatch was not acting for his mas
ter but for himself and
ABOUT HIS OWN BUSINESS.
Judge Vanderburgh'S ruling was: ga
telegraph company is liable for the
fraud and misfeasance of an agent en-
trusted with the duty of transmitting
messages over its line, and in sending
false and fraudulent message prepared
by himself to party who receives the
same in the usual course of business
and in good faith acts thereon to his
damage. And where the local agent of
telegraph company, who was also
agent of an express company at the
same place, sent q forged dispatch to a
merchant in neighboring city request
ing him to forward money to his CORE
SpOndent at the former place to use in.
by and the same was duly received and
the money in good faith forwarded by
express in response to the telegram, but
was anticipated and converted to his
own use by the agent. Held that the
transmission of the forged dispatch was
the proXimate cause of the loss, and
that the corporation was liable, though
an action might also have been main
tanned against the express company"
II. NJ. Todd ct al. claimed damages
from the Minneapolis d st. Louis Rail-
way company, and the decision of
Judge Vanderburgh, of the supreme
court, filed yesterday, was: The
plaintiffs were engaged in buying
ahead at the warehouses owned by them
on the line of the defendants railway,
for manufacturing fl0uer at their mill,
to which the wheat was shipped, and i'm
selling the products of the mill at the
same warehouse; and while so en-
gagged and for considerable time, their
business was interrupted and interfered
by a.Street leading to the same by the
unlawful occupation thereof with the
defendants cars and trains. Held that
in estimating plaintiffs damage caused
by such distractions, evidence of the
diminution of the profits of their bust
ness, simply including the manufacture
of flour, was incompetent, as embracing
too many elements of uncertainty, to
form basis for estimating damages"