Lancaster v. Futrell

(after stating the facts as above). Appellants insist, and we agree, that testimony merely (and there was none other as to the authority he possessed) that Robinson was the carrier’s station agent at Detroit, did not warrant a finding that he had authority to bind them by a contract with appellee to board and lodge the mule. Hill v. Railway Co., 6 Ala. App. 488, 60 South. 450; 1 Elliott on Railroads, §§ 211, 214, 216, 303; 4 Elliott on Railroads, § 2895; Railway Co. v. Bryan, 60 Ind. App. 223, 110 N. E. 218; Railway Co. v. McVay, 98 Ind. 391, 49 Am. Rep. 770; Sevier v. Railway Co., 92 Ala.…