This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can usually download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1916 edition. Excerpt: .in his excellent work 011 Master and Servant (2d Ed.), "01.

6, section 2281, p. 6880, states the rule correctly and clearly in the following language: be responsible for the negligent management of the thing intrusted to the servant, so long as the latter is using it or dealing with it in the ordinary course of his employment On the other hand, it is agreed that evidence which goes no further than to show that the instrumentality by means of which, or in respect of which, a servant committed a certain tort was owned by the master, is not sufliclent to establish a vicarious liability on the part of the master. Such evidence, it is obvious, is equally consistent with the inference of a loan or license, or with the inference of a user by the servant for his own purposes, without the knowledge or consent of the master." Appeal from Fourth District. occurred, the person in whose charge and control such vehicle was had started out on a. trip to deliver or handle some article or articles dealt in by the defendant. It may be that under such circumstances it could be inferred that the person in charge of such a vehicle was in the employ of the defendant, and that such person was discharging some duty in the course of his employment. We have no such case here, and hence do not express an opinion upon such a state of facts.

It was an easy matter for plaintiff s counsel to call the driver in question and show by him that at the time of the accident he was engaged in the course of his employment. Moreover, the defendant at least was present in court, and no reason appears why the facts could not be elicited from him. For the reasons stated the judgment is affirmed, with costs to respondent. STRAUP, C. J., and MCCARTY, J., .