Cairo & St. Louis Railroad v. Mahoney

Citations

• 82 Ill. 73

Syllabus

<p>1. Parol evidence—to prove contents of telegram. In the absence of proof of the loss or destruction of a telegraphic dispatch, and of notice to produce the same, parol evidence is not admissible to prove its contents.</p> <p>%. In a suit by a surgeon, against a railway company, for treating an employee injured while in the service of the company, it is proper to prove by parol the fact of the injury to the servant of the company, and that the station agent notified the superintendent of that fact by telegram.</p> <p>3. Agency—proof of ratification of agent’s act. Where a surgeon has been employed by a station agent of a railway company to attend an employee injured while in the service of the company, although he may not have express authority to do so, yet slight acts of ratification by the company will authorize a jury in finding the employment was the act of the company.</p>