Washington News Co. v. Satti

Bond, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court. On appeal from a judgment for damages to the infant plaintiff from being struck by an automobile owned and driven by one Canolles, it is objected by the defendant and appellant that there is no evidence legally sufficient to prove that Canolles was acting as its servant while driving, and that a verdict for the defendant should therefore have been directed. The trial court refused a prayer for that direction. The defendant was a seller of school supplies to retail merchants, with its place of business in Washington, District of Columbia.

Canolles, living in Baltimore City, was a salesman of their goods, with the whole of the Baltimore field for sales given to him. At the same time, and up to within a month of the accident, he had, as he said, “another line—sundry goods and paper products,” for a company in Brooklyn, New York. At the time of the accident he had only the one connection; that with the defendant in this suit. The evidence, adduced on behalf of the plaintiff and uncontradicted, was that Canolles had samples furnished him by the defendant from Washington, and with these he procured orders from dealers and transmitted. ⁴⁹¹ •them to the defendant for deliveries from Washington directly.

The defendant furnished him with names of possible customers, and he solicited new ones. Some were customers of both Canolles’ principals when he had two. He was given no directions by the defendant as to any progress in his work, none as to route or time. The time he worked, the number of days a week, or no time at all, would be at his election, and as he pleased.

He made no accounting of his work, reporting nothing but orders from customers when he received any. He had no connection with deliveries, and none with the payments for goods sold; and his compensation was strictly commissions on sales. In going about for possible purchasers he used his own Hudson sedan automobile. The defendant’s agents in Washington knew he was doing so, and about six months after he started on the connection with them they procured from him information as to the title of the automobile, and the engine and serial numbers.

Sometimes he drove the automobile on trips to see the employer’s agents there; but he paid all the expenses of his car, receiving nothing from the defendant on account of them. The sales made for this principal were few. During the year 1932, his commissions amounted to only $346, during 1933, $426.12; and on April 14th, 1934, he received only $2.07 for