34 BULLETIN 1106, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. 
It will be remembered that an incorporated cooperative association 
is an artificial entity, separate and apart from its members. No 
case has been found where members of an association have been held 
liable for wrongful acts of neglgence of an association while en- 
eaged in acting as agent for members in the transaction of certain 
business or in the doing of certain work authorized by them, but 
no reason is apparent why they could not be so held in a proper 
case. 
The true conception of this matter can be readily understood when 
one bears in mind that he is lable, as a general rule, for all acts 
of his agent while the agent is acting within the scope of his em- 
ployment. The character of the agent, whether an individual, part- 
nership, or incorporated association, is immaterial. It is upon this 
theory that automobile owners, whether individuals or corporations, 
are held liable for injuries to others caused by the negligent driving 
of their machines by their agents or employees. It is no answer 
that an agent was not authorized to do the particular act which 
caused injury or loss if it was done while in the course of the busi- 
ness of his principal or employer. 
In a case decided by the Supreme Court of Oregon, in 1920,° the — 
plaintiff was the holder of 24 shares of capital stock of the defendant . 
corporation. He entered into contract with the defendant to con- 
sign milk produced by him to parties designated by the defendant, 
and the defendant agreed to collect all moneys due him on such 
consignments and pay the same to him, less the commission for 
services as agent of 5 cents per 100 pounds of milk. Other members 
of the league apparently entered into contracts similar to the one 
signed by plaintiff. Later a regular purchaser of milk refused to 
accept delivery of a large quantity shipped by other members of 
the league, which was then disposed of at less than the contract 
price. Owing to the loss thus sustained by the producers of this 
rejected milk, the league in an effort to apportion the loss among 
the members made deductions from the amount of the sale price 
of plaintiff’s milk, all of which had been accepted and for which 
the league had received pay. He then brought suit to recover the 
entire sale price of his milk, less the commission charge of 5 cents 
per 100 pounds. The court held that he could recover, and in 
doing so said: 
It was competent for the plaintiff as an individual, irrespective of his 
holding stock in the defendant corporation, to contract with it as effectually 
and to all intents and purposes as if he had no share of the stock of the 
defendant. The contract itself is the measure of the rights and liabilities 
existing between the plaintiff and the defendant as contracting parties. 
* * * Tt was not within the scope of its (defendant’s) contract, or of its 
16 Steelman v. Oregon Dairymen’s League, Inc., (Oreg.) 192 Pac. 790. 
