Judgment of the Court
(Oral).-We of opinion tnat this appeal mitst be allowed and the judgment of Mac- Mahon J. restored.
The cause does not turn upon any nice distinction between the facts of this case and those upon which previous authorities have proceeded.
It depends upon well settled principles concerning the responsibility of masters for the acts of their servants. The leading case is Quarman v. Burnell and the facts proved in that case do not make it an exception to the principle of that decision in which the Court of Exchequer adopted the opinions Lord Tenterden J. and Littledale J. in Laugher v. Pointer (2).
Justice.
J e
This case of Quarman v. Burnett has been recognized as an authority and acted on as such in several subsequent cases.
Rapson v. Cubitt (3); Dalyell v. Tyrer ; Jones v. Corporation of Liverpool (5); Little v. Hackett
The two cases relied on in support of the judgment under appeal are not in point. In Rourke v. White Moss Colliery Co. (7) the engineer was held not to be the servant of the defendants inasmuch as it had been expressly stipulated by the parties for whom the work was being done that they should have entire control of the engine and engineer.
In Jones v. Scullara (8) the facts were different; the whole control of the driver was in the defendant who was the owner of the carriage, horse and harness, and the Lord Chief Justice so far from indicating any intention to overrule Quarman v. Burnett expressly adopts it, for he cites approvingly a passage from the judgment of Bowen L. J. in Donovan v. Laing- Syndicate (9) to that effect and then proceeds as follows: