442. See Partridge V. Bank of England. 15 l j. Q. B. 395.

(m) Per cur. Stewart v. Aberdein, 4 M. & W. 211, 228,

(В«) See Bartlett v. Pentland, ubi sup.

(o) Mann v. Forrester, 4 Camp. 60. B. N. P. 130.

{p) Drinkwater v. Goodwin, Cowp. 251. Hudson v. Granger, 5 B. & A. 27. SeВ«

Wainer v. M'Kay, 1 M. & W. 595.

192 Mercantile persons.

Rights of third Persons against Principal.

that he will not be discharged unless the money reach the princi-

pal, or unless he can prove that the agent really was deputed to

receive that money ; not even though the agent to whom he pays

may have been usually employed to receive money, (q) for his non-

production of the security rebuts the implication of authority aris-

Ing from such his employment.

As payment to an authorized agent is payment to his principal,

so a delivery to the former is a delivery to the latter : thus, a de-

livery of goods to a carrier's servant is a delivery of them to the

carrier ; all these instances, and many others, only exemplify that

general maxim upon which the whole law of principal and agent

hinges, Quifacitj^er alium facit i^er se.

Hitherto we have only considered the responsibility of the prin-

cipal to third parties, in consequence of contracts, and acts connected

with such contracts ; but he is also liable, and that to a considerable

extent, for lorongs committed by his agent while engaged in his

service. He will, of course, be so in every instance in which he

has expressly commanded the wrong to be done, or given orders

which could be executed only by its commission ; (r) and there are

many instances in which it requires no express command to make

.him answerable.

Thus he is responsible for the negligence of his agent, acting m

the prosecution of his business, though not under his immediate

direction ; as if one of his servants lame a customer's horse in shoe-

Ing him, or drive his master's carriage so unskilfully that it injures

the person or property of a stranger;* innumerable other cases

(j) Hen V. Caisby, 1 Cha. Ca. 93, n. Gerard v. Baker, 1 Cha. Ca. 94. D. of Clevo

land V. Dashwood, 2 Eq. Ca. Ab. 709. Wosteuholme v. Davies, 2 Freem. 289.

(r) Gregory v. Piper, 9 B. & C. 591.

* The liability of a master for the negligence of his servants, is confined to stran-

gers, and does not extend so far as to render him responsible to one servant for an

Injury arising from the carelessness of another who is engaged in the same general

business. This principle was discussed and affirmed in the recent case of Farwell v.

The Boston and Worcester Railroad Corporation, 4 Met. 49, and subsequently recog-

nized and approved in Brown v. Maxwell, 6 Hill, 592. Albro v. Agawam Canal Co.,

6 Curt. Y5. Hutchinson V. York, Newcastle and Berwick Railway, 5 w. H. & g. 343,

Ib. 354. The doctrine, after elaborate discussion, has been denied in Ohio, Stevens

PRINCIPAL AND AGENX I93

Rights of third Persons against Principal.

might be put illustrating the general principle, (s) which seems to

extend so far as to make the employer responsible, at least in some

cases, not only for the act of his immediate agent, but for that of a

sub-agent employed by him. Thus, where A. employed B. to re-

pair his house, B. contracted with C. to do the work, and C. with

J), to furnish the materials, which D.'s servant carelessly left on the

road, and thereby caused an injury to the plaintiff, it was held that

A. was answerable for the mischief, (t)

(В«) Brucker v. Fromont, 6 T. R. 659. See 1 Raym. 739. Hurry v. Rickman, 2

M. & R. 126. Leslie v. Pounds, 4 Taunt. 649. "Weyland v. Elkins, Holt, 227 ; 1 Stark.