113, A warehouseman employed a master-porter to remove a barrel from his ware-

house, the master-porter employed his own ratn and tackle, and through the neglect

of the men the tackle broke and the plaintiff was injured. Held, that he might

recover from the warehouseman. In Quarman v. Burnett, 6 M. & Wels. 499, the

same point which had been argued in Laugher v. Pointer arose in the Court of

Exchequer, who decided in favor of the view taken by Lord Tenterden and Mr.

Justice Littledale. However, assuming that the view taken by the Court of Ex-

chequer in that case be ultimately allowed to be correct, as in all probability it will

be, care must be taken to distinguish between the case in which a man is sued for

the act of the servant of another with wliom he has contracted, and the case in

which he is sued for the act of one whom he has authorized another to retain as his

agent. " Upon the principle that qxd facit per aliumfacit per se, the master is respon-

eible for the acts of his servant, and that person is undoubtedly liable who stood in

the relation of master to the wrong-doer — he who had selected hira as his servant

fi'om a knowledge of or belief in his skill and care, and who could remove him for

misconduct, and whose orders he was bound to receive and obey. And whether

that servant l\<i? been appointed b}' the master directly or intermediately through the

Intervention of an agent authorized by him to appoint servants for him, can make no

difference." Per Parke, B., in Quarman v. Burnett, uhi supra. Quarman v. Burnett

lias since been acted on in Rajison v. Cubitt^ 9 M. <fe W. 710; and see Milligan v.

Wedge, 12 Ad. & Ell. 737. The case too of persons, who in the prosecution of a

lawful work enter into a contract with a third person for its performance, seems to

be wholly distinguishable from that of the employment of a mere servant. There

eeems to be no reason for holding them responsible for acts which they never autlio

rized or even contemplated, and for acts done by an independent person against

whom they could only have redress for deviations from his engagement injurious to

themselves. See Allen v. Hayward, 15 L. J. Q. B. 99. Burgess v. Gra}-, 1 C. B. 578.

(?i) Per curiam Croft v. Alison, 4 B. <fe A. 590. McManus v. Crickett, 1 East, 106.

Lyou3 V. Martin, 8 A. & E. 512. See Hurry v. Rickman, 1 M. & Rob. 126 ; sed qucere

* The extent of the master's liability for the acts of hij ser^apt jvas considered by

the Supreme Court of the United States, in the case of the Philadelphia and Reading

PRINCIPAL AND AGENT. 195

Rights of third Persons against Principal.

The principal has been thought to be responsible, not merely

for the neo^lio-ence but for the deliberate fraud of his agent com-

mitted in the execution of his employment, though without the

whether the principal's responsibility be not too largely described in that case.

Huzzey v. Field, 2 C. M. & R. 432. It may be remarked, that there is an exception