Julian Goldman Stores v. Bugg

Bond, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court. In a suit against a principal for damages from malicious prosecution by his agent of ai non-resident attachment, with garnishment of the debtor’s wages, the trial court excluded evidence offered by the principal to show that it had denied the agent any authority to resort to litigation for it; and exceptions to that action are presented to this court on appeal. The principal maintained a retail store at Cumberland, in charge of Charles A. Brodsky as manager, and Bugg, an employee of the Baltimore and Ohio Eailroad Company, had been purchasing from the store-, and appeared on its records as indebted to it. Brodsky, after some- correspondence with Bugg urging payment, sued out the non-resident attachment, and by the garnishment stopped payment of Bugg’s wages for about three weeks, and, according to Bugg, caused him damage.

The attachment was dismissed upon Bugg’s showing that he was a resident. There was testimony that Brodsky was the- only person in Cumberland in charge -of the store, had general charge- of it, collected money, and had sued out some attachments p-re ³⁸ viously, obtaining payments by means of some of them. The defendant, in reply, produced its manager at the time of trial, Brodsky being no longer in its employ, and asked him whether he, himself, had, as manager, authority t» institute civil proceedings of any kind. .The question was excluded and its exclusion forms the subject of the first exception. Then, after the witness had identified the signatures, the defendant offered in evidence a written or printed contract of agency with Brodsky, in which his power’s and duties were defined with some minuteness, and in one section of which it was provided that “the manager shall have no authority to bring or cause to be brought any civil or criminal action or proceeding in any court, * * * without the written authority of the party of the first part in each case separately and specially given.” This was excluded, and its exclusion forms the subject of the remaining exception.

There are no other exceptions; and this court is not asked to consider whether an action can be brought for such -a prosecution, or for such damages as are testified to. The only questions are those on the exclusion of the evidence on authority of the agent as stated, assuming the suit to be maintainable. There might be a, question of the relevancy of the later manager’s authority on am issue of Brodsky’s authority, but that may be passed unconsidered. This court is of opinion that the evidence referred to in both exceptions was properly excluded on one and the same ground: that the employer’s liability or lack