Instead of so doing, the coachman picked up a friend and

118 Tee law of agency.

took him off for a drive ; in the course of the drive, owing^

to the coachman's negligence, who was drunk, the carriage

was run into by a cab and damaged ; and the plaintiff

company sued the doctor for damages. The doctor was

held liable ; and in delivering the judgment of the Court,

Cave, J., said ; " When a wayfarer is injured by the

negligence of a person who is driving a carriage along a

highway, he has a right of action founded on tort against

the driver ; and if the driver is a servant driving in the

course of his employment, he has also a remedy against the

master, on the principle of " Respondeat superior ; " but

where a man hires a horse and carriage, there is an implied

obligation on his part, arising out of the contract, to return

them in the condition in which he received them, fair wear

and tear and certain accidents excepted ; and if they are

injured by the negligence of the hirer's servant while

driving in the course of his employment, the latter's remedy

is by action on the contract, and can be enforced against

the hirer only and not against his servant. That there is

a difference between the hirer's liability to the owner and

his liability to a wayfarer injured by the negligence of the

person driving the carriage, is plain from the following

instances. A hires a horse and carriage for a year, and

lends it for a day to B, who negligently drives over and

injures C, at the same time injuring the horse and carriage.

In that case A is not responsible to 0, because B is not his

servant, and consequently the maxim "Respondeat superior "

does not apply ; but he is responsible to the owner of the

horse and carriage for the damage done by B's negligence."

Smithy. North Metropolitan Tramway Company (1891),

7 T. L. R. 450. C. A. ; here a tram conductor asked the plain-

tiff for his fare ; and as owing to the crowd he could not get

at his pocket he asked the conductor to wait a little. The

conductor thcrun[)on took ])laintiff by the collar and pushed

liiin off the car, wliercby he fell and sustained severe

injuries. The company were held liable for the injuries.

EIGHTS AND DUTIES OF PRINCIPAL AND AGENT. 119

The Master of the Rolls, in giving judgment, said; "It

is a case of master and servant, and all the decisions on

the subject show that, where the relation of master and

servant exists, the master, whether a corporation or an

individual, is responsible for the acts done by the servant

in the course of his employment, even though the particular

act has been done wrongly and illegally, and against the

express direction of his master."

2. The principal is liable for any loss or damage caused

to a third party by the fraud or other wilful wrong or tort

of the agent, if the wrong or tort was committed, either

with the principal's authority ; or in the ordinary scope of

the agent's employment, and for the benefit of the principal.

Moreover, if the wrong was committed in the ordinary scope

of the agent's employment, and for the principal's benefit,

the latter is liable even though he expressly forbade the

agent to act in such a manner.

Udell V. Atherton (1861), 7 H. & N. 172 ; here, the

defendant employed an agent to sell a log of mahogany

for him. The agent, without his principal's authority or

knowledge, made fraudulent representations as to its sound-

ness. The principal was held to be liable for his agent's

fraud,

Limijus V. London General Omnibus Company (1862),