Case Name: Fidelity & Deposit Company of Maryland v. Messer et al.
Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Mississippi
Decision Date: 1916-10
Citations: 112 Miss. 267
Docket Number: 
Parties: Fidelity & Deposit Company of Maryland v. Messer et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: Mississippi Reports
Volume: 112
Pages: 267–269

Head Matter:
Fidelity & Deposit Company of Maryland v. Messer et al.
[72 South. 1004.]
1. Rewabds. Necessity for Knowledge of offer.
A reward cannot be earned by one who did not know it bad been offered; for there can be no acceptance of an uncommunicated offer.
2. Same.
The publication of an advertisement offering a reward is a general offer to make a contract with any person who is able -to perform the required services and meet the conditions of the proposal. The performance of the service or the performance of the condition on which the promise is made, with knowledge, is an acceptance of the offer, and when done concludes the contract. The matter rests exclusively in the domain of contracts involving an offer and its acceptance.
Appeal from the circuit court of Forest County.
Hon. Paul B. Johnson, Judge.
Suit by J. C. Messer and others against the Fidelity & Deposit Company of Maryland. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.
Appellees, who were policemen of the city of Hat-tiesburg, Miss., receiving a regular monthly salary, brought suit against the appellant to recover two hundred dollars reward for the capture of two bank burglars.
The New Hebron Bank was burglarized by two persons, and the information was telephoned to nearby cities, including Hattiesburg, and the appellees, members of the police force, apprehended the burglars on an incoming train. They were subsequently convicted and sentenced.' The bank which was burglarized was insured against burglary in the appellant company, the policy providing, among other things:
“Display Sign. — Upon the payment of the premium due hereunder the Fidelity & Deposit Company will forward to the bank a sign for display in the banking room, and a metal plate for outside display, . . . these signs reading as follows: ‘Insured against burglary, robbery, or hold up by Fidelity & Deposit Company of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland. One hundred dollars reward for the apprehension and conviction of each person burglarizing, robbing, or holding up or attempting to burglarize, .rob, or hold up. this bank.’ ”
The case was tried before a judge, a jury being-waived, on an agreed state of facts, which stipulated that the bank had paid the appellant the premium and had obtained the policy of insurance protecting it against loss by robbery, burglary, or holdup, and that said policy was in full force at the time the burglary occurred, and that appellees captured the burglars, who were fugitives from justice. It was agreed also that appellees did not know that there was a reward of one hundred dollars offered by the appellant for the apprehension of persons burglarizing the banks insured by it against burglary. From the judgment for appellees, this appeal is prosecuted.
Flowers, Brown, Chambers & Cooper, for áppellant.
Currie & Currie, for appellee.

Opinion:
Smith, C. J.,
delivered the opinion of the court.
The contract here sought to be enforced is one alleged to have been created by the acceptance by appellees of appellant's offer of a reward for the capture of the persons who burglarized the New He-bron Bank. It appears, however, from the agreed statement of facts that when appellees arrested the' burglars they did not know that appellant had offered a reward therefor; consequently they cannot be said to have accepted the offer.
"Tbe publication of an advertisement offering a reward is a general offer to make a contract with any person wbo is able to perform tbe required services and meet tbe conditions of tbe proposal. Tbe performance of tbe service' or tbe performance of tbe condition on wliicb tbe promise is made, with knowledge, is an acceptance of tbe offer, and, when done, concludes tbe contract. Tbe matter rests exclusively in tbe domain of contracts involving an offer and its acceptance. This being true, it logically follows that a reward cannot be earned by one wbo did not know it bad been offered; for there can be no acceptance of an uncommunicated offer." 1 Elliott on Contracts, sec. 51; Clark on Contracts (3d Ed.), p. 49; Lawson on Contracts; Broadnax v. Ledbetter, 100 Tex. 375, 99 S. W. 1111, 9 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1057.
Reversed, and judgment here for appellant.
Reversed.