Virginian-pilot. (Norfolk, Va.) 1898-1911, 1899-11-17

111oCGt1 TOLD 81 Tar TlCiNrr
AGENT THE DAY At.rt.1s IT'S
SALE THAT HE COULD Do 50.
This was IL suit for damages for be-
ing elected from train OF defendant.
The plaintiff bought three tickets of
defendants agent at Sioux City. On
the face of each ticket was printed.
Good only one day from date of sale"
One of these tickets was used on the
| day OF sale, but on the next day be-
| fore the expiration Of "a hours from
the time of sale, the plaintiff presented
the unused tickets to the agent at
Sioux City stating that the men for
whom they were purchased had failed
to get off. and asking the agent TO
refund the money paid for them. The
agent refused to do this, but told
plaintiff that Notwithstanding the
printing on their face the tickets
were good for transportation after one
day from date of sale. Relying upon
this statement the plaintiff the next
day boarded the train of defendant
was accepted. Several days after
wards he again boarded a train and
presented the third ticket which the
conductor refused to accept The
plaintiff explained to the conductor as
to bis purchase Of the tickets and the
statement of the agent, hut was forci-
bly, elected from the train The lower
court sustained demurrer to the dec
laration and plaintiff appealed
The court says:
i. The important question to be de-
termined is whether, under the cir
cu!nssances related in the petition,
the limitation printed on the ticket
wa Was valid and binding upon the plain
TIM That railway company may
adopt reasonable limit OF time with
IN which ticket may be used to Sc
cure transportation over IT'S road In
inc absence OF statutory regulation is
well settled.
2.It is Insisted that as the ticket
agent was authorized to and did sell
the ticket in question, misrepresenta-
lions TO the effect that 1t would be
good and might be used for transpor-
tation after the expiration of one day
from the date of sale were binding
upon the defendant. 1t will be OBJ
served that the representations of the
agent were not made at the time the
ticket was sold, but on the next day,
although within % hours after the
hour of sale. The petition does not
a,lege that the ticket agent had any
actual or apparent power to bind the
defendant by the representa- tons made,
and we are required to determine
whether an agent authorized to sell
railway tickets has the implied power
to bind the railway company, after the
sale is fully completed and his duties
In regard to 1t are at an end, by rep
reservations which contradict the plain
terms of the ticket Sold We are of
opinion that but one answer can be
made to that question. AS a general
rule special agent can bind his prin-
cipal by declarations only when they
are made within the scope OF his en-
ployment, and at the time of perform
Ing the duties to which they relate.
An agent whose duty 1t Is to sell
tickets for his principal has no i'm
Piled power to construe the contract
after the sale Is fully completed and
nothing remains for the agent to do.
1t is not to be doubted that n limi-
tation like that in question may be
! waived ~. competent authority hut
the fact that one of the two tickets
not used within one day from the date
Of sale was received as good does not
constitute u waiver. The Limitation
printed on and made a part of the
ticket does not appear to have been
unreasonable, and no fraud or mistake
to affect the contract is shown. AZ
| firmed.