The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1895-11-21

Missouri, Kansas and Texas Railway
company ct al. VS.. A. Faulkner: suit to
recover damages for the alleged breach
of a contract of hiring, from Harris
county; First district. Reversed and re-
handed
A.. Waldo, acting in his capacity of
1lrst vice president of the Missouri, Kan
sas and Texas Railway company, incor-
porated under the laws of Kansas, and
the Missouri, Kansas and Texas Rail-
way company in Texas incorporated I'M
DER the laws of Texas, employed A
faulkner for the term of one year at a
salary of $4,000, to act as general pas
senger and ticket agent for both of said
companies. Faulkner having entered
upon the duties of said employment and
continued therein nine months, was dis
charged by II. G. Purdy, who in the
meantime had succeeded Waldo as first
vice president of said companies. After
the expiration of the contract of employ
ment, Faulkner sued both companies for
damages for breach of contract of
employment and recovered judg-
ment therefor for the sum of $3.50. such
being the balance of salary for the three
months of the year uneXpired at the date
of his discharge.
The only questions raised relate to the
authority of Waldo to bind the defend
ants by this contract. 1t is not contend
ed that Waldo exercised an apparent au-
thority which he did not in fact possess.
Therefore, in order to support the iudg-
ment actual authority in Waldo to make
the contract sued ON must be shown.
Flrst-We will first consider the case
as to Waldo's authority to bind the Kan
sas company.
No statute of Kansas or provision of
the charter of said corporation has been
shown granting such power. So far as
the record shows, the bylaws of the com
pany Is the sole source of the authority
OF the first vice president of this COM
pany. 1t is clear that all persons appoint
ed by him under the bylaws were re-
movable by him or his successor at
pleasure, and that, therefore, no power
was conferred upon him to employ Faux
ner for the fixed period of one year,
without power of removal.
Second-Did Waldo have power to
make the contract in behalf of the Texas
company?
The statutes are silent upon the uues-
ton. No bylaws of this company au-
thorlzes the first vice president to bind
the company by the contract in question,
or even authorizes him to employ such an
officer or agent as Faulkner has been
shown to have been.
1t would be observed that, in making
the particular agreement with Faulkner
Waldo was attempting to bind both COM
panies by joint contract employing
Joint agent to render services not apper-
tanning wholly to the business of either
If it be conceded that by
law could have been lawfully passed au-
thorizing the employment in question in
this case, its language would have to be
SUSCEPTIBLE of no other construction, in
order to justify a holding that it confer
red upon the first vice president authority
to bind the company to pay for services
to be rendered for a given time, in part
at least for another company. Such au-
thority is beyond and an addition to the
most general authority to employ, for it
involves the power to virtually guarantee
the payment of the other company's Of
iicers for such term as the first vice presi-
dent might deem proper.
Reversed and remanded. Opinion by
Denman, j..