66 P. 768 | Utah | 1901
after a statement of the case as above, delivered the opinion of the court.
The appellant insists that neither its station agent, nor the company itself, had any power to enter into a contract to furnish cars of another company, and that therefore the company was not liable under the contract in evidence. This
Nor was it incumbent upon the plaintiff to allege and prove that the station agent had authority to make the contract for cars. In a ease where a common carrier is sued for a breach of such a contract which, as in this instance, is not
The mere fact that the agent agreed to furnish a specific kind of cars owned by another railway company did not, under the circumstances shown in evidence, render the contract void, nor relieve the appellant company from its duty to furnish
Nor had the appellant any right to furnish cars to other persons which, in accordance with the order of the time in which the notice for cars was given, ought to have been furnished to the plaintiff, and thus discriminate against him in favor of
Erom the foregoing considerations, we are of the opinion that the court did not err in refusing to instruct the jury, as requested by the defendant, to the effect that the agent had no authority to make the contract in question, and that the-same was therefore invalid.