Court Opinion

ID: 9868304
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-26 18:28:28.34393+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:16:31.169801
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Cothran:
I concur in the result upon this ground: The complaint was plainly demurrable; it did not allege that the defendant received the baggage for transfer; it did not allege that the defendant, Wise, who actually received it, was the agent of the transfer company; it did not allege that the transfer company by its negligence permitted Wise to represent himself as the agent of the transfer company; it simply alleged that the transfer company had agreed to transfer the baggage, and that Wise had called for it, representing himself as the agent of the transfer company, and that in the movement Wise had lost the baggage:
The defendant not having demurred to the complaint, not having made a motion to require the complaint to be made more definite, and not having objected to testimony along both lines (that Wise was the agent of the transfer company, and that the latter was negligent in allowing him to represent himself as their agent,) is not in a position now to object to the testimony or charge of the Court upon either theory. Both of these issues were fairly presented to the jury in the Circuit Judge’s charge, without objection on the part of the defendant, and with the finding of the jury we are not concerned.