Court Opinion

ID: 9868302
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-26 18:28:28.33195+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:16:30.104286
License: Public Domain

*518The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Justice Watts.
This' was an action by plaintiff against defendants for loss of suit case, the defendant Wise defaulted, and the City Transfer and Baggage Company answered and contested. The case was heard by Hon. M. S. Whaley, County Judge, and a jury, and a verdict rendered in favor of the plaintiff. Wise did not appear and testify. The issue raised by the other defendant was that Wise was not their agent, and that Wise took the notice of call from their desk without their knowledge, and answered the call without their knowledge or authority. After entry of judgment defendant appeals and ta^es four, exceptions, but on the hearing of the case abandoned the fourth exception. All three of the exceptions complain of error in the Judge’s charge. No motion was made in the trial below for non-suit or directed verdict, so the only-question to be determined was whether or not the Judge erred in his charge.
1 The first and second exceptions are overruled. His Honor committed no error in charging the law of agency, and explaining how the relationship of principal and agent may be created; the evidence and issues made in the case made it necessary that his Honor should elucidate this. The complaint alleged such facts that the inference could be drawn that Wise was the agent of the appellant, and from the evidence offered at trial that inference could be inferred and the real question in the case was, Was Wise the agent of appellant for the purpose of transporting the plaintiff to the depot ? and not whether Wise was the general agent of the appellant, or how he was appointed.
2 If his Honor committed an error in misstating the issues raised by the pleadings to the jury it was the duty of attorneys to call his attention to such error. We see no merit in any of the exceptions as made. Under the *519undisputed facts of the case the plaintiff was clearly entitled to a verdict, and the appellants got a, trial that was free from error on the part of the trial Judge. All exceptions are overruled, and judgment affirmed.
Mr. Chief Justice Gary and Mr. Justice Fraser, concur.