Case Name: A. B. Levisee v. Shreveport City Railroad Company
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1875-07
Citations: 27 La. 641
Docket Number: No. 608
Parties: A. B. Levisee v. Shreveport City Railroad Company.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Annual Reports
Volume: 27
Pages: 641–642

Head Matter:
No. 608.
A. B. Levisee v. Shreveport City Railroad Company.
When plaintiff undertook to perform for the company a service not strictly within the sphere of Ms duties as President thereof, he should have required a stipulation for remuneration for said service, if lie expected it from the company. He was the president, acting within the scope of his authority in directing the construction of certain works. He had no right, however, to employ himself as a master builder and expect a good salary.
In regard to the expenses for constructing a depot, there was a full settlement between plaintiff and defendant, and if plaintiff’s account now presented is valid, it should have been embraced in that settlement, there being no allegation of error.
APPEAL from the Tenth Judicial District Court, parish of Caddo. Looney, J.
J. B. Slattery, Wm. A. Seay, for plaintiff and appellant. JEgan & Wise, for defendant and appellee.

Opinion:
Wyly, J.
Plaintiff appeals from the judgment rejecting his demand, $750 for five months services rendered by him in superintending the construction of a railroad depot for the Shreveport City Railroad Company, and also an account of $20 for tools and materials furnished for the work. The plaintiff was the president of the company, and the corporation promised no remuneration for his services in directing the construction of a depot.
He was in no sense a negotiorwm, gestor, and there was no implied contract between him and the company. He was the president acting within the scope of his authority iu directing the construction of the work. He had no right, however, to employ himself as a master builder, and expect a good salary. He could not put his duty as president in conflict with his private interest, in getting a good situation as builder at a good salary. Prom the evidence, we are satisfied that when the company authorized him to direct the construction of .the work no salary as master builder .was expected to be paid¿ When plaintiff undertook to perform for the company a service not strictly within the sphere of his duties as president, he should have required a stipulation for remuneration for said service if he expected it from the company.
In regard to the expenses for constructing the depot there was a full settlement between plaintiff and defendants, and if the account of $20 is valid, it should have been embraced in that settlement, there being no allegation ot error in said settlement.
Judgment affirmed.