Blain & Kelly v. Pacific Express Co.

Citations

• 69 Tex. 74
• 6 S.W. 679
• 1887 Tex. LEXIS 778

Syllabus

<p>1. Perading — Evidence . —When a proclamation offering a reward for the stealing or embezzling of cmoney from an Express Company was alleged in a suit against it, to have been made by the company, acting through designated parties as its officers, the authority can not be questiones by the defendant, except on a plea of non est factum, filed as required by statute.</p> <p>S. Evidence. — In such a suit the declarations of a third party who assumed to act for the company, are not admissible in evidence against it for the purpose of showing that the defendant agreed to pay the reward, in the absence of evidence showing his authority to make them, when there is no proper plea setting up such íSÉÉwrity, and this, though they were made by the superintendent of ij^^^^pany. ______________</p> <p>8. Contract. — A proclamation by é^H^resféSTtopay a designated sum for the arrest of two persons who nad stolen or embezzled money, eonstitutes, when acted on by one who makes the arrest of both persons, a contract which may be enforced; but it is single in its nature, and no right of action exists to recover any portion of the reward for the arrest of but one of the parties, when the failure to arrest the other, is not caused by the fraud or fault of the person offering the reward.</p>