The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1898-10-11
|DR. SPELMAN" NON-SU|TED
HE Action Against the Gold Coin
Thrown Out of Court.
pU%DGEBRANTLYS DECISION
AN Exhaustive and Lengthy Opinion
Rendered by the Court in Passing
Upon the Defendants Motion
for q Non-Suit.

The case of DIR. ]. +. Spelman against
fhe Gold Coin Mining and Milling COM
pany was on trial yesterday in the dis
frict court. The plaintiff was repre-
3ented by o'Leary a Maiden and the
defendant by J. r. Boarman.
The suit vas brought TO recover a
Zee. of $3.50 claimed by DR.. Spelman. and
claim for $3.50 on an account Of DR..
Rdckenzie. assigned to DIR. Spelman. for
medical and surgical services rendered
by the plaintif to three miners named
&8eatton. Erickson and Larsen, who
Were injured by an explosion at the
asold Coin mine last winter. The claim
3xas based upon an alleged employment
81 the physicians in behalf of the COM
4any by MIR. Beaton, the foreman. and
Sby Mr.. Loomis. the secretary and gem
fral manager OF the
After the Introduction OF the plaint-
rn's evidence. the defendant moved for
non-suit on the following grounds:
THAT no authority has been shown in
fither LOOMS or Beaton To employ
Blaintin, or his asslgnor, TO attend the
fnen injured on behalf Of the defend
ant: that IL has not been shown by the
Plaintif that h employment of the
plaintiff and his assignur in the case of
the men injured, by either LOOMS or
Beaton. came within the scope of their
authority as officers of the defendant;
shat no liability for plaintiffs claim
has been shown as against the defend
mt.
The court sustained the motion for
non-suit on the grounds stated in the
following opinion. which will be of con-
siderable interest to the legal frater-
nifty:
1T is a general rule of law tina a
corporation cannot be bound by any
contract made by any of its officers or
agents in Its behalf unless such contract
comes clearly within the scope of the
authority of UGH officer or agent. or
unless UGH officer or agent be specially
authorized thereto by the board OF Gi-
erectors of the corporation. Even the
board OF directors cannot authorize an
officer or agent to contract for the cor
poration as to matters entirely outside
of the purpose for which the corpora
fion is organized. Such contracts as
these last mentioned are what are
termed in law ultra wires. and are not
binding on the corporation at all. These
are general principles applying to all
corporations. IL Is conceded, however,
that IL Is within the powers OF a cor
poration engaged in enterprises more
or less dangerous. to employ physicians
n surgeons TO furnish proper atten-
- - HAANh Ah lNta vi
their services. This employment may
even extend TO the employment Of "A
physician to attend upon the employees
generally. IL Is when we begin to ron
slider the question as to how the en-
ployment should be made that we hrst
meet with difficulty. Should this
ployment be by special authorization Of
the board OF directors, or = he rom
tract Of employment such "A one as the
ordinary agents Of the mpan can
make within the scope Of their author
ity? II Is held in Marquette. etc, Il.
II. Co. VS.. Taft. IS Mich. 2S9. that such
employment may be made by the SUI
perintendent Of a railroad
Also In Pacific r.. II. G. VS.. Thomas.
18th Kansas 251. Also I'm Toledo, etc.
r. II. Co. VS.. Rodreques. A. III. 1ss. The
case first above mentioned was de-
cided by the supreme court Of Michi-
a In an opinion by Judge Cooley. the
opinion is elaborate. and the learned
justice assume the position that rail-
road corporations, owing To the posi-
ton they occupy as quasi-public corpo-
r%ations, enjoying great imfnunities and
privileges and employing large num-
bers Of men I'm a very dangerous species
" enterprise. are under a moral ohli-
cation to furnish their employees with
suitable medical and surgical attend
ance in cases OF accident and injury.
He insists that this view - based upon
considerations of humanity, and that
these considerations are Of such strong
import that the moral obligation resting