2Zi LIABILITY OF MASTER FOR DEBTS CONTR ACTED BY SERVANT. 



have liappeued, and if tlic defendant could by the exercise of ordinary 

 care and canlion have avoided the consequences of the neglect or care- 

 lessness of the plaintiff. 



Lord EUenhoromjh C.J. ruled, in Rushy v. ScaHcll, that the master is 

 discMrijcd from the payment of debts contracted hy the servant where he 

 gives the servant money beforehand to jmy for goods ; but not where he 

 authorizes the servant to take up goods, and afterwards gives him money 

 to pay, if the servant embezzles the money. The action here was to 

 recover the price of hay and straw sold and delivered at defendant's 

 stables; but there was no evidence that the plaintili' had ever seen the 

 defendant, or received any orders from him. Defendant said he had 

 given the coachman money to pay the bills, and that he had embezzled 

 it ; but it appeared the money was advanced generally, and not with a 

 view to this particular demand ; and there was a verdict for the plaintiflp. 

 It was held by Potloclc C.B. in Aste v. Montague, that a gentleman was 

 I'dhtefor corn ordered in his name by a livery-stable Iceeper, ivho had been 

 his coachman, and continued to loear his livery, not having given notice 

 to the plaintiff of the employment being at an end. Rimel v. Sctmpayo 

 was relied on for the plaintiff, in which Littlcdale J. held that if a gentle- 

 inan's coachnum go in his mastefs livery and hire hm'ses, which his master 

 v.ses, the master will be bound to pay for the hire of the horses, although 

 he has agi'ced with the coachman that he will pay him a large salary to 

 provide horses, unless the lender of the horses had some notice that the 

 coachman hired them on his own account and not for his master. 

 "Where the p)risoner had been in the habit of buying and selling corn for 

 his employers, and he had been accustomed to employ, for the purpose 

 of payments on their behalf, as well monies which he received on their 

 account, as monies which he received from them for that purpose, and 

 had falsely entered the price of some corn which he had purchased and 

 paid for as amounting to a larger rate of Qd. a coomb than it really did, 

 and retained the difference, it was held by Wightnuin J. that there was 

 no case for larceny ; but scmble that there was a case for the jury of 

 embezzlement (Reg. v. Lgon), And in Howard v. Siieward (2 L. R. 

 C. P. 148), the Court held that the servant or agent of a horse dealer has 

 implied authority to bind his principal or master by a warranty, even 

 though, unknown to the buyer, he has express orders not to warrant. 



In Gingell v. Glascock, the plaintiff, a hay salesman, sold for the 

 defendant a load of hay to one Sumner, and remitted £4 IG.s. to him 

 before Sumner had paid. In the meantime defendant's servant, who was 

 sent up to London with the hay, charged by the plaintiff to deliver it to 

 the purchaser, was imposed on by some cheat, who personated Sumner, 

 and got the hay. Sumner would not pay, and the defendant would not 



