In the case of some public officers, such as the postmaster-general, coiTimissioners of

customs and excise, auditors of the exchequer, Ac, who are not liable for the acta

of their inferior officers, nor is the captain of a man-of-war responsible for the mis-

conduct of the lieutenant, if there is none on his own side. Nicholson v. Mounscy,

15 East, 884. Lane V. Cotton, 1 Ld. Raym. 646; Com. 100. "Whitfield V. Lord Le

Despencer, Cowp. 754. See St. de Scaceario, 51 H. 3, stat. 5, ss. 7 & 8, and stat. 21

E. 3, c. 21, de proditionibus ; but this exemption does not extend to the privaie agents

of such public officers. Dj'. 161 ; 3 Mod. 323, nor to sheriffs, 2 Esp. 507; Roll. Ab.

92, Pi. 2 ik s; see Morris V. Parkinson, 4 Tyr. 700, 1 c. M. & r. 163, except when

actmg in their judicial capacity'. Turner v. Morris, 4 Dowl. 225. For it is a general

rule that the law looks to the sheriff, and to him alone ; he is responsible even for

tlie bailiff's wilful misconduct or deliberate fraud ; "lie is identified with his officers in

every case, except where, as in Crowder v. Long, 8 B. <fe C. 598, the party opposed

to the sheriff is colluding with the officer." Raphael v. Goodman, 8 A. & E. 565.

Smart v. Hutton, ibid. 568. Owners and masters of ships obliged by statute to em-

ploj' licensed pilots, are exonerated from responsibilit}' for their conduct. 6 Geo. 4,

c. 125.

Railroad Company v. Derby, 14 How. S. C. R. 468. A suit had been brought against

the conijiany by a person injured by a collision. It appeaa-ed that the plaintiff was

riding in a special car, upon the invitation of the president of the company, paying

no fare, and that the engineer having the control of the colliding locomotive was

forbidden to run upon the track at the time, and had acted in disobedience to his

orders. The Court sustained the action. J. Grier delivering the opinion of the Court,

saj's : "We find no case which asserts the docti'ine that a master is not liable for the

acts of a servant in his employment, when tlie particular act causing the injury was

done in disregard of the general orders or special command of the master. Such a

qualification of the maxim respondeat superior would in a measure nullify it. A large

proportion of the accidents on railroads are caused by the negligence of the agents

of the company. Nothing but the most stringent enforcement of discipline, and the

roost exact and perfect obedience to every rule and order emanating from a superior,

can insure safety to life and propert}'. The Intrusting such a dangerous and power-

ful engine as a locomotive to one who will not submit to control, and render implicit

obedience to orders, is itself an act of negligence, the '^ causa caicsans" of the raia-

chicf, wh'.le the proximate cause, or the ipsa neyligentia which produces it, may

trulj' be said, in most cases, to be the disobedience of orders by the servant bo in-

trusted. If such disobedience could be set up by a railroad company as a defence,

when charged with negligence, the remed}' of the injured party would in most cases

be illusive, discipline would be relaxed, and the danger to the life and limb of the