Weldon v. Traction Co.

Citations

• 27 Pa. Super. 257
• 1904 Pa. Super. LEXIS 386

Syllabus

<p>Principal and agent — Contract—Evidence—Physician—Street railways— Claim agent.</p> <p>Where a physician brings an action against a street railway company to recover for professional services rendered to an injured pássenger, and the plaintiff avers that he was employed to render such service by the claim agent of the defendant, the burden is on the plaintiff to show that the claim agent had general authority to employ a physician, or special authority in the particular instance, or that his engagement of the plaintiff was ratified by the defendant, or that the defendant had so held him out as its agent, that it was estopped in denying his authority. Declarations of the agent that the president of the defendant had ratified the arrangement are insufficient.</p> <p>In such a case evidence of the employment by the same agent of another surgeon to attend other injured persons, is incompetent, where it appears that the compensation of the other surgeon was included in settlements made with the injured persons as a part of the consideration for the settlement, and that no question arose as to the surgeon’s right to hold the company on the employment by the agent.</p> <p>Accident reports are, also, insufficient evidence in such a case, where it appears that the reports, although containing the name of the surgeon, in no way show that he was engaged or was acting on behalf of the company.</p>