Bellman v. Pittsburg & Allegheny Valley Railway Co.

Citations

• 31 Pa. Super. 389
• 1906 Pa. Super. LEXIS 225

Syllabus

<p>Practice, C. P. — Nonsuit—Evidence—Contract—Principal and agent— Corporation — Railroad.</p> <p>A peremptory nonsuit is in the nature of a judgment for defendant on demurrer to the evidence; and hence, in testing the validity of such non-suit the plaintiff is entitled to the benefit of every inference of fact which might have been fairly drawn by the jury from the evidence before them.</p> <p>It is immaterial that the evidence in support of the plaintiff’s claim may be very slight, provided that it amounts to more than a mere scintilla. If there is any evidence which alone would justify an inference of the disputed facts on which his right to recover depends, it must, according to well-settled rule, be submitted to the jury.</p> <p>In an action against a railway company to recover for services rendered in securing rights of way, plaintiff claimed that he was employed by a person who was an agent of the company. The evidence tended to show that the defendant opened an office, placed its name upon the door, and left the alleged agent to occupy it in such a manner that his agency might be inferred; that he represented himself as the agent of the company; and that the stockholders and officers of the company knew this, and knew that the plaintiff was employed by the alleged agent in the interest of the company. Held, that the question of the agency was for the jury.</p> <p>While the declarations of an alleged agent are not evidence of the existence of the agency, continuous acts performed by him in and about the business of his alleged principals, and their recognition of these acts, are evidence from which an agency may be fairly inferred by a jury.</p>