Majority
Headnote
Special Verdict. — In Regard to the Sufficiency of a Special Verdict, -when the question submitted is whether one in employing another acted for himself or as an agent, the rule is that enough must he found, when the verdict is relied on as the basis of a judgment, to show in and of itself a legal conclusion of liability.The finding in this case is in the nature of a special verdict. It is that the work was done at the instance of Kappelman & Co., who were the agents of the defendant, the defendant being a corporation. It was claimed by the defendant that though Kappelman & Co. were the agents, they were also contractors* and that they employed the plaintiff in this last capacity. There is no necessary inconsistency between a man being an agent and his contracting in an individual capacity, and the very question here was, as to what capacity Kappelman & Co. acted in making this contract. The rule is that enough must be found by a special' verdict or finding, when that is relied on as the basis of a judgment, to show in and of itself a legal conclusion of liability. This was not done here. We must, therefore, reverse the judgment, that the issue may be directly and explicitly found.
We concur: Field, C. J.; Cope, J.