Page:Halsbury Laws of England v1 1907.pdf/434

 Agency.

212 Sect.

4.

Principal's Liability for

Agent's

Torts.

results in a wrongful act (m), the principal is responsible to third persons for any loss or damage occasioned thereby. Where the act complained of is not expressly authorised by the principal, the principal is responsible if such act is committed by the agent in the course of his employment and for the principal's

but not otherwise

Wrongful

benej&fc (n),

act not authorised

Wherever a principal has authorised an agent to do a particular class of acts on his behalf, he is responsible for any act (p) done by the agent which falls within the scope of his authority as measured by reference to his ordinary duties (q), however improper (r) or imperfect (s) the manner in which the authority

expressly.

Act within ordinary scope of authority,

though expressly forbidden.

Act beyond scope of

employment.

(o).

is carried out, provided that the act is done for the principal's benefit (t) and not for that of the agent (a). It is immaterial that the act in question has been expressly prohibited by the principal (b).

Where, however, the act done by the agent outside the scope of his employment, the principal

falls is

entirely

not respon-

sible (c).

A

EfEect of

principal

is

discharged from liability for any tort committed

judgment against agent.

(w) Glynn v. Houston (1841), 2 Man. & G. 337. (n) Bariuick v. English Joint Stock Bank (1867), L. E. 2 Exch. 259, per WlLLES, J., at p. 265. For examples, see Monaghan v. Taylor (1886), 2 T.L. E. 685 ; Betts v. De Vitre (1868), 3 Ch. App. 429 Ewhank v. Nutting (1849), 7 C. B. Bayley v. Manchester, 797 Giles v. Taff Vale Rail. Co. (1853), 2 E. & B. 822 Sheffield, and Lincolnshire Rail. Co. (1873), L. E. 8 C. P. 148; Page v. Defries Whiteley v. Pepper (1866) 7 B. & S. 137; Ashton v. Spiers (1893), 9 T. L. E. 606 But every act done in the course of the employment is (1876), 2 Q. B. D. 276. deemed to be done for the principal's benefit until the contrary is proved; compare Ward v. London General Omnihus Co. (1873), 42 L. J. (c. P.) 265, with Oroft V. Alison (1821), 4 B. & Aid. 590. Stevens v. (o) Bolinghroke v. Sioindon Local Board (1874), L. E. 9 C. P. 575 Woodivard (1881), 6 Q. B. D. 318; Croft v. Alison, supra; Whitechurch v. Oavanagh, [1902] A. C. 117. (p) Even though felonious {Oshorn v. Gillett (1873), L. E. 8 Exch. 88). (q) Cheshire v. Bailey, [1905]^ 1 K. B. 237, per Mathew, L.J., at p. 245. The onus of proof is on the plaintiff {Beard Y.London General Omnihus Co., [1900]





,





2

a B. 530).

(r) Compare Udell v. Atherton (1861), 7 H. & N. 172, with British Mutual BankY, Charnwood Forest Rail. Co. (1887), 18 Q. B. D. 714 (fraud); Hatch v.

Hale (1850), 15 Q. B. 10, with i^icAarcZs v. West Middlesex Waterworks Co. (1885), 15 Q. B. D. 660 (distress) Morris v. Salherg^ (1889), 22 Q. B. D. 614, with Smith v. Kent (1882), 9 Q. B. D. 340 (execution); Moore v. Metropolitan Rail. Co. (1872), L. E. 8 Q. B. 36, with Poidton v. London and South Western Rail. Co. (1867) L. E. 2 Q. B. 534 (false imprisonment). (s) Compare Whatman v. Pearson (1868), L. E. 3 C. P. 422, with Storey v. Ashton (1869), L. E. 4 Q. B. 476; Alraham v. Bullock (1902), 86 L. T. 796, with Cheshire v. Bailey, supra; Engelhart y. Farrant, [1897] 1 Q,. B. 240, with Beard v. London General Omnihus Co., supra. {t) Compare Mackay v. Commercial Bank of New Brunswick (1874), L. E. 5 P. C. 394, with British Mutual Bank v. Charnwood Forest Rail. Co., supra. (a) Coleman v. Riches (1855), 3 C. L. E. 795. (h) Limpus v. London General Omnihus Co. (1862), 1 H. & C. 526; Gregory v. Piper (1829), 9 B. & C. 591. (c) Sanderson v. Collins, [1904] 1 K. B. 628 Poulton v. London and South Western Rail. Co., supra. In Storey v. Ashton, supra, and Cormack v. Dighy (1876), 9 Ir. E. C. L. 557, the agent, though acting outside the scope of his employment, was to some extent acting in his principal's interest, yet the principal was not liable.

,