{ "id": 8658217, "name": "CHARLES BUCKEN v. SOUTH AND WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY", "name_abbreviation": "Bucken v. South & Western Railway Co.", "decision_date": "1911-12-20", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "443", "last_page": "447", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "157 N.C. 443" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.C.", "id": 9292, "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 5, "name_long": "North Carolina", "name": "N.C." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "138 N. C., 483", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "143 N. C., 180", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "154 N. C., 140", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8651909 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/154/0140-01" ] }, { "cite": "146 N. C., 49", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "142 N. C., 1", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8651463 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/142/0001-01" ] }, { "cite": "136 N. C., 527", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "155 N. C., 287", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8652281 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/155/0287-01" ] }, { "cite": "139 N. C., 353", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "138 N. C., 483", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "opinion_index": 0 } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 572, "char_count": 9571, "ocr_confidence": 0.446, "pagerank": { "raw": 3.93289165193805e-07, "percentile": 0.9031043894837112 }, "sha256": "a63072d068ff40bcdee14a9390ee0392af2dc186cf37f52fc851571333edce25", "simhash": "1:b01d2f508c22a1c6", "word_count": 1666 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:57:03.195282+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "CHARLES BUCKEN v. SOUTH AND WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "BeowN, I.\nTbis appeal is in forma pauperis and comprises 134 typewritten pages, of wbicb 110 pages comprise tbe evidence in chief, cross-examinations and reexaminations as taken down by tbe stenographer in tbe form of question and answer. Tbe defendant offered no evidence and tbe witnesses for plaintiff were few in number. At tbe end of tbe stenographer\u2019s notes is tbis entry: \u201cIt is agreed that tbe record proper and stenographer\u2019s notes shall constitute case on appeal.\u201d There is no other attempt to make out a ease on appeal, as required by law. Tbis is in direct violation of tbe rule of tbis Court, No. 22, and of its express decision in Cressler v. Asheville, 138 N. C., 483.\nThat such of tbe evidence as is necessary to present tbe assignments of error could easily have-been stated in condensed narrative form is manifested by tbe fact that tbe counsel for plaintiff and defendants have set out in their respective briefs very clear and brief statements of tbe evidence, wbicb substantially agree.\nUnder tbe circumstances of tbis case we will make an exception and not dismiss tbe appeal, but we will be compelled to do so in the future unless our rule is observed.\nWe have been saved tbe great labor of a close perusal of tbis bulky transcript by. adopting practically tbe facts.as stated in defendant\u2019s brief, as follows: \u201cIn February, 1906, tbe defendants, Carolina Company and South and Western Railway Company (no question being made in tbis case as to their relation to each other or to tbe work), were engaged in grading and constructing a line of railway through McDowell County, employing several thousand men at different camps. During that month plaintiff, then at Spartanburg, S. C., was employed by one Redericks to work on said road. In company with others, be went from Spartanburg via Asheville, to Marion, walked nine or ten miles from Marion to Camp 9, where be was told by Captain Harris (who the evidence shows was superintendent at Camps 8 and 9) that he was not needed at Camp 9, and directed to go to Camp 8. Plaintiff thereupon walked to Camp 8, three miles distant, reached there late in the day, had his name given to the walking-boss there, was employed at Camp 8, made arrangements to go to work there, and the next morning went to work and worked half a day, and then, in company with Wheeler and Wyatt, two of the men who had come with him, started home, carrying his baggage. When about midway on the road to Camp 9, they were met by two men, one of whom they identify as Captain Harris. Harris drew a pistol on Wheeler and the other man drew a pistol on plaintiff and Wyatt, and all were commanded to throw up their hands, which they did. Harris then asked where they were going, and, upon being informed that they were going home, told them to go back to Camp 8, which they refused to do. Thereupon Harris asked their reason, and they, answered that it had been misrepresented to them. Harris then said that Eedericks was at .Camp 9 and they would go down and see whether he misrepresented things or not. Harris and the other man rode behind them, Harris cursing them all the way, with his pistol drawn, and upon their arrival at Camp 9, Harris called to a man, 'Sheriff, here are some more hoboes,\u2019 and directed the man whom he called sheriff to put them in one of the overseer\u2019s houses that had a sufficient lock on it. The evidence shows that the man addressed as 'sheriff\u2019 was George Carson, and that he was a walking boss or camp superintendent of one of the defendants at Camp 9, with authority to employ and discharge men at that camp.\n''This man thereupon told plaintiff and his two companions to consider themselves under arrest, searched them, took their money, valuables and baggage, and drove them before him with drawn pistol to a room, where he locked them up. Some time that night plaintiff was called to the door by this man, who drew a sack over his head and, with others not identified, led, dragged, and kicked him some distance from the house, flogged him severely, ordered him to leave, fired off pistols and ran him away from the camp. As a result of this cruel treatment, plaintiff was severely and permanently injured.\u201d\nTbe defense is that tbe defendants are not liable for tbe acts of tbeir superintendent and other agents, as sueb acts were beyond tbe scope of tbeir authority. Tbe facts as stated by tbe defendants', counsel show a degree of severity, abuse, and violation of law which should bring upon tbe servants of defendants who committed them tbe punishment of tbe criminal law. As stated by plaintiff's brief, they disclose a degree of brutality almost unbelievable.\nIn addition to tbe statement copied from defendants\u2019 brief, tbe evidence tends to prove tbat tbe defendants were engaged in building tbe railroad, and no question as to an independent contractor is raised. One Fred. Rederick was defendants\u2019 labor agent employed to secure laborers for defendants, and in such capacity be employed plaintiff and furnished bis transportation to defendants\u2019 camps, and there some little provisions, etc., were advanced1 him. Harris was tbe superintendent of tbe work of construction and in control of tbe labor -camps and laborers. Carson and Foster were tbe walking bosses \u25a0 at camps and bad absolute control in superintendent\u2019s absence. Tbe arrest was made by tbe superintendent of defendants while about bis master\u2019s business, and in tbe furtherance of tbe interests of tbe master, tbe evident purpose of tbe arrest being to force the plaintiff to return to work and pay bis transportation. When tbe pistols were leveled at plaintiff, tbe purpose of tbe arrest was then and there made known by tbe superintendent: \u201cHe told us tbat we would have to go back to Camp 8; tbat we were not going to leave there\u201d; \u201cGo back up there, and go quick\u201d; \u201cGo on back up there and pay your transportation\u201d; \u201cWe don\u2019t owe any transportation\u201d; \u201cOb, yes, you do, damn you, and you will go back and pay it,\u201d etc. Harris bad charge of both Camps 8 and 9, and while on duty and looking after bis master\u2019s interests, and not for any purposes of bis own, be took plaintiff under arrest and held him helplessly imprisoned until be was taken out and beaten tbat night.\nIt is contended, and it may be inferred from tbe evidence, tbat tbe very room in which plaintiff was confined was constructed by defendants for prison purposes in order to enforce obedience to the commands of its superintendent and foreman, and to prevent escapes.\nWe recognize the well-established rule that the master is not responsible for the tort of his servant when done without his authority and not for the purpose of executing his orders or doing his work, but wholly for the servant\u2019s own purposes and in pursuit of his private and personal ends. But that is not the only inference that can be drawn from the evidence in this case. There is nothing to show that Harris and Carson had any private ends of their own to pursue or that they had quit sight of the company\u2019s work and were following the suggestions of their own malice. On the contrary, the evidence shows that they assaulted and imprisoned plaintiff to force him to pay the alleged debt to the company and to compel him to work against his will on the company\u2019s road.\nThis question has been very elaborately discussed in several recent opinions of this Court, and it is useless to \u201cthresh over old straw.\u201d\nThe principles laid down in Jackson v. Telegraph Co., 139 N. C., 353; May v. Telegraph Co., ante, 416; Berry v. R. R., 155 N. C., 287, are clearly applicable to the facts of this case as now appearing.\nThe subject is also fully discussed, and distinctions drawn in Daniel v. R. R., 136 N. C., 527; Sawyer v. R. R., 142 N. C., 1; Stewart v. Lumber Co., 146 N. C., 49; Marlowe v. Bland, 154 N. C., 140, and Dover v. Manufacturing Co., ante, 324; Roberts v. R. R., 143 N. C., 180.\nHis Honor should have submitted the issues to the jury under appropriate instructions.\nThe judgment of nonsuit is set aside.\nNew trial.", "type": "majority", "author": "BeowN, I." } ], "attorneys": [ "Tucker \u2022& Lee and W. T. Morgan for plaintiff.", "Locke Craig, A. Hall Johnston, and J. Norment Powell for defendants." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "CHARLES BUCKEN v. SOUTH AND WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY.\n(Filed 20 December, 1911.)\n1. Master and Servant \u2014 Servant\u2019s Torts \u2014 -Scope of Employment\u2014 Respondeat Superior.\nThe master is not responsible for the tort of his servant when done without his authority and not for the purpose of executing his orders or doing the work, but wholly for the servant\u2019s own purposes and in the pursuit of his private or personal ends.\n2. Same \u2014 False Imprisonment \u2014 Assault and Battery \u2014 Evidence\u2014 Questions for Jury.\nIn this action to recover damages for false imprisonment, and assault and battery, alleged to have been received at the hands of defendant\u2019s agents, there is sufficient evidence that the acts complained of were done in the furtherance of the master\u2019s work for the application of the doctrine of respondeat superior.\n3. Appeal and Error \u2014 Case Agreed \u2014 Stenographer\u2019s Notes.\nAn agreement by counsel that the record proper and stenographer\u2019s notes shall constitute the case on appeal will not be considered by the Supreme Court, as such is in direct violation of Rule 22. Oressler v. Asheville, 138 N. C., 483, cited and applied.\nAppeal from Lane, J., at November Term, 1911, of BuNCOMBE.\nCivil action brought to recover damages for false imprisonment, assault and battery, and other wrongs alleged to have been received at bands of defendant\u2019s agents. At conclusion of tbe evidence bis Honor sustained motion to nonsuit, and plaintiff appealed.\nTucker \u2022& Lee and W. T. Morgan for plaintiff.\nLocke Craig, A. Hall Johnston, and J. Norment Powell for defendants." }, "file_name": "0443-01", "first_page_order": 483, "last_page_order": 487 }