LIABILITY OF MASTER FOR ACT OF SERVANT. 9A1 



London and County Joint Stock Bank £180 4,s. 8^7., for wheat lie had 

 sold for his lordship in the December jjrcvious ; and on January 28th 

 Lord De L'Isle, on learning that he had an account at the bank, served 

 them with a notice to hold " the balance, £128 Is. lOtl, on credit of 

 the account of Mr. Tasscll, the same being formed of money belonging 

 to me," until further correspondence had taken place ; and the plaintiff's 

 checks were accordingly dishonoured. The Court had no doubt what- 

 ever as to the point that, at all events, after the check was converted 

 into money, the bankers (having no notice at the time they obtained 

 money for it that it was not the property of the plaintiff) were indebted 

 to him as for money had and received to his use, or -money lent, and 

 became liable to account to him for it whenever he chose to call for it ; 

 but they also seemed to consider that it might be very questionable 

 whether the plaintiff might not fairly have understood the intimation to 

 him that he was "not to deal any more with Lord De U Isle's properf//," 

 as prohibiting him from making any more sales, but not from getting 

 in money from persons to whom he had already sold corn, especially as 

 he did not seem to have been asked to render an account of the sales 

 Avhich he had already effected. And see Tindall v. PoiveJl, where a hill 

 for an account against a person who was alleged to have acted as steward 

 to an aged lady up to the date of her decease, was dismissed with costs, 

 there being no circumstances of suspicion against the defendant, and no 

 duty to keep accounts having been undertaken, and the education and 

 capacity of the defendant, as well as the course of dealing between him- 

 self and his employers, being inconsistent with the notion of his keeping 

 regular accounts. 



It was decided in JiPManus v. Criclcett (1 East, 106) that a master is tiot 

 liable in tresimssfor the tvitful act of his servant, as by driving his master's 

 carriage against another without the direction or assent of his master 

 (who was not present) ; but that he is liable to answer for any damage 

 arising to another from the negligence and unskilfulness of his servant 

 acting in his employ. And per Curiam : " For a wilful act ■intrinsically 

 icrong by a servant, the master is not Vuible. By a parity of reason he 

 ought not to be, where the act, not wrong in itself, is only so for reasons 

 l)ersonal to the servant and his wilful disregard of them. The master's 

 liability ought to be limited to that which he may anticipate and guard 

 against " {Beyy (Adx.) v. Tlie MidJand Railway Company). So udiere a 

 servant teas guilty of unJauful pounding, it was held in Lyons v. Martin 

 that his master was not liable. The defendant occupied land adjoining 

 a highway, and not fenced ; and horses of the neighbourhood had, 

 shortly before the act in question, trespassed on the land and been im- 

 pounded. The plaintiff's horse being on the highway was intentionally 



