Court Opinion

ID: 7991168
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-09-09 01:31:15.532701+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:35:22.674680
License: Public Domain

McLean, J.
(dissenting and concurring).
The reporter will set out in full the declaration in this cause. The defendant demurred to the declaration, and, the demurrer being sustained, plaintiff declined to amend, and prosecuted this appeal.
It is urgently insisted by appellee that the declaration shows that the plaintiff went to the depot, not for the purpose of transacting business with the defendant, but on private 0 business with the agent of the defendant. It is true that the allegations of the pleadings are construed most strongly against the pleader, yet, when we examine the declaration as a whole, it is manifest that the plaintiff was at the depot for the purpose of transacting business with the defendant. Among other things the declaration alleges: ‘ ‘ There was a depot in the town of Star, Rankin county, Mississippi, where the plaintiff lived, and the said depot was in charge of the agent of the defendant, and under and by the laws the said agent at Star was conservator of the peace, and it was his duty to preserve the peace and to protect all persons coming to the depot to transact business with the defendant. . . . On or about this day the plaintiff went to the depot, at Star, of the defendant for the purpose of transacting business with the agent of the defendant.” It is not debatable but what the reasonable construction to put on this language is that the business to be transacted was not with the agent individually and on private business with the agent, but that the plaintiff went there for the purpose of transacting business with the defendant. If not, why did he say “for the purpose of transacting business, with the agent of the defendant?” The expression, “agent of the defendant,” must necessarily mean in the agent’s representative, and not *659in his individual, capacity. To allege that he went to transact business with the agent of the defendant is equivalent to saying that he went to transact business with the defendant through its agent. Further, when he went to transact business with the agent' of the defendant necessarily implies that he did not intend to transact business with him as principal, but with him as agent.
The insufficiency of the declaration is this: It fails to allege the kind and nature of the business that called plaintiff to the depot. It should specify such business as the deféndant under the law is required to perform, either by statute or common law. At first I was inclined to the opinion that the declaration under our statute was sufficient; but my brethren have convinced me otherwise, and I place my concurrence solely upon the ground that there is nothing in the declaration which discloses the particular business that called him to the depot. It may be that this business was such as required the defendant to protect him; but plaintiff should have set out this in the declaration. "We cannot assume that he went to the depot for the purpose of transacting any particular kind of business. The declaration does not so state, and the allegations are construed most strongly against the pleader.