Rossman v. American Express Co.

Citations

• 70 Pa. Super. 525
• 1918 Pa. Super. LEXIS 295

Syllabus

<p>Malicious prosecution — False arrest — Principal and agent — Implication as to authority — Protection of goods.</p> <p>An express company may be held liable for a false arrest directed by the assistant general agent; when it appears that goods had been stolen from the company, that an organized attempt was being made by the company to prevent further thefts and recover goods stolen, and that plaintiff was arrested with several others alleged to have been implicated with him in the thefts.</p> <p>In the absence of proof of express authority, an implication thereof can arise, in the ease of a subordinate agent, only when the arrest is made for the protection of the principal’s property in danger, for its recovery, or to prevent a crime at the time being committed.</p>