Minter v. Southern Express Co.

BeowN, J.

Tbe complaint alleges that tbe Southern Express Company maintained offices in tbe city of Charlotte at tbe Southern Eailway station; that Kreeger was tbe night foreman, and Eust was tbe night watchman of tbe express company, and that they were in charge of tbe business and bad custody and care of tbe property of tbe express company; that Eust, agent and night watchman of tbe express company, charged tbe plaintiff with stealing a beg of whiskey from tbe express company; that Eust, agent and night watchman of tbe express company, swore out and caused to be issued a warrant for tbe arrest of tbe plaintiff, charging tbe larceny from tbe express company of tbe whiskey; and that be also swore out and caused to be issued a search warrant for tbe search of tbe plaintiff’s premises for tbe whiskey; that in swearing out tbe warrant of arrest and tbe search warrant, Eust was acting under tbe or *508 ders or instructions of Kreeger, foreman, and was also acting as tbe employee of tbe express company; that under tbe said warrants Rust went witb two policemen to tbe sleeping room of tbe plaintiff and made search for tbe whiskey. Tbe defendant demurred on tbe ground that it is not allege'd in tbe complaint that tbe express company authorized or ratified tbe acts of its agents and employees.

We deem it unnecessary to do more than to refer to tbe elaborate discussion of this question by Mr. Justice Walker in Daniel v. R. R., 136 N. C., 517 , and to tbe very apt quotation therein from tbe opinion of Justice Blackburn in Allen v. R. R., L. R. 6 Q. B., 65.

In sustaining tbe demurrer, bis Honor followed well established precedents.

Affirmed.