Lancaster v. Futrell
218 S.W. 805, 1920 Tex. App. LEXIS 110 (1920)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A station agent's apparent authority is limited to acts necessarily incident to the business of receiving and delivering freight and does not extend to binding the carrier to a contract for the care of an injured animal, absent a proven emergency that prevents communication with a superior.
Facts:
- A mule was injured while in the possession of the appellant carrier.
- Robinson was the carrier’s station agent at its Detroit station.
- Robinson entered into a contract with the appellee for the appellee to board and lodge the injured mule.
- The only evidence presented of Robinson's authority to make such a contract was testimony that he was the station agent.
Procedural Posture:
- The appellee sued the appellant receivers in a lower court to recover payment for boarding and lodging the mule.
- The lower court rendered a judgment in favor of the appellee.
- The appellants appealed the lower court's judgment to this court (the Court of Civil Appeals).
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a railway station agent, solely by virtue of that position, have the implied or apparent authority to bind the railway company to a contract for the board and lodging of an animal injured while in the carrier's possession?
Opinions:
Majority - Willson, C. J.
No. A station agent lacks the inherent authority to bind the carrier to a contract for animal care. The court reasoned that an agent's apparent authority is confined to actions that are a necessary incident to their primary duties, which for a station agent are receiving and delivering freight. Hiring a third party to care for an injured animal is not considered a necessary part of that duty; the agent's responsibility is to deliver the shipment as it is, and the consignee's duty is to accept it, even if damaged. The court distinguished this from a true emergency, such as a situation requiring immediate medical attention to save a human life when a superior cannot be reached, which might temporarily create such authority. However, no such emergency was demonstrated in this case, so the contract was unenforceable against the carrier.
Analysis:
This decision narrowly construes the doctrine of apparent authority for low-level agents like station masters, protecting principals from liability for unauthorized contracts. It establishes that a third party cannot reasonably assume an agent has authority for matters outside the ordinary scope of their employment. The ruling carves out a very limited 'emergency doctrine' exception, placing a high burden on the third party to prove not only that an urgent situation existed but also that the agent was unable to contact a superior for authorization. This reinforces the principle that an agent's authority is not unlimited and requires third parties to be diligent in verifying the scope of an agent's power to contract.
