Dintenfass v. American Railway Express Co.

Citations

• 78 Pa. Super. 395
• 1922 Pa. Super. LEXIS 125

Syllabus

<p>Carriers — Express companies — Delivery of goods to carrier — Evidence — Sufficiency—Driver as agent — Authority — Burden of proof.</p> <p>In an action to recover the value of goods alleged to have been delivered to an express company for transportation, evidence that requests had been made, and the usual card hung out, to have defendant’s employees call for shipments, and that defendant’s truck came and a driver and helper, having the usual cap worn by the defendant’s drivers, received the goods, some of which were later found in the defendant’s possession, was sufficient to warrant the inference that the goods were received by the company, and to support a finding for the plaintiff. The same would be true in the case of testimony that packages were delivered to a driver who represented himself as being connected with the carrier, and who drove one of its wagons, and wore a badge.</p> <p>The plaintiff, having established delivery to a vehicle of the defendant in charge of a person prima facie in its employment, it remained for the defendant to show that the inference of ownership and agency relied upon by the plaintiff was wrong.</p> <p>There was sufficient evidence to sustain the finding of the lower court in favor of the plaintiffs, and its judgment will be affirmed.</p>