Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 4.djvu/194

 '1?0 FEDERAL. BBPOETEB. �When the plaintiff had rested Hs case defendants counsel moved the court to direct a verdict for the defendant, and after argument a verdict was so directed, with leave to the plaintiff to have the question reviewed on a motion for a new trial before the full bench for misdirection to the jury. �Tbe case turns on a pure question of law, There was no evidence tending to show personal negligence on the part of the defendant, and he is not liable unless the negligence of Dodge is imputed to him byreason of their relation of master and servant created by the contract. �Does the contract create that relation, or haa it the effect to put the possession and control of the mill into the hands of Dodge during the running season ? Some of the provisions of the contract are equivocal in their bearing, and are entirely consistent with either view. But the question can be fairly determined only by a cbmprehensive view of the varions pro- visions taken together, and the effect to be given them as a whole. And we still thiiik, after long and eareful coùsidera- tion of the contract, that the defendant is not liable. The question is not whether the contract is technicMly a lease of the premises, but whether the effect is to put the mill in the control of Dodge in his own right, and be;fond the control and interference of Clifford. If such is the effect, and we think it is, then Dodge anà not Clifford is liable for the negligence of Dodge and his workmen in running the mill. The rule that the tenant and not the landlbrd is liable for his own negligent acts in the use of the premises is not an arbitrary rule, but is founded upon deep and abidîng principles of justice. The ground of the action in such cases is the personal negligence of the defendant. But if, without fault on his part, he has placed the use of the premises beyond his own personal con- trol, in respect to the very matters whereof the complaint is made, then it is but simple justice that he should not be held liable. �It is true, there was no rent in terms reserved by the con- tract, Nevertheless, it is evident that Clifford gets his rent in the diminished cost of the shingles. Neither is the res- ervation of rent essential to a lease, nor any particular form ����