 In all these cases it may be said, as it was said here, that the master has not authorized the act. It is true, he has not authorized the particular act, but he has put the agent in his place to do that class of acts...  The State Reports, New South Wales - Page 201de New South Wales. Supreme Court - 1906Affichage du livre entier - À propos de ce livre
 | 1905 - 496 pages
...said the master has not authorised the act. It is true he has not authorised the particular act, but he has put the agent in his place to do that class...which it was the act of his master to place him in." Founding themselves on the principle so stated, the Court of Appeal, in British Mutual Banking Co.... | |
 | Francis Marion Burdick - 1905 - 604 pages
...his place to do that class of acts, he must be answerable for the manner, in which the representative has conducted himself in doing the business, which it was the act of the master to place him in." 6e § 2. SLANDER OF TITLE. Nature of the Tort. This wrong differs from... | |
 | Sir John William Salmond - 1907 - 574 pages
...that the master has not authorised the act. It is true he has not authorised the particular act, but he has put the agent in his place to do that class...which it was the act of his master to place him in." On the other hand, if the unauthorised and wrongful act of the servant is not so connected with the... | |
 | 1903 - 732 pages
...though no express command or privity of the master be proved." And subsequently he added (p. 266), "He has put the agent in his place to do that class...which it was the act of his master to place him in." And the same learned judge had pointed out in a previous case — Limpus v. London (i H. & C. 539)... | |
 | 1908 - 554 pages
...(page 266) : 'It is true he has not authorized the particular act, but be has put the agent in bis place to do that class of acts, and he must be answerable...himself in doing the business which It was the act of the master to place him in.' See, aUo, Daniel v. Petersburg K. Co., 117 N. Car. 592, 23 SE Rep. 327,... | |
 | North Carolina. Supreme Court - 1908 - 1348 pages
...name of and apparently in behalf of the principal, the latter must be answerable to innocent parties for the manner in which the agent has conducted himself in doing the business confided to him. Upon no other principle could the public venture to deal with an agent. In such case... | |
 | James Parker Hall, James De Witt Andrews - 1910 - 468 pages
...the master's benefit. ... .It is true, he has not authorized the particular act, but he has put his agent in his place to do that class of acts, and he...which it was the act of his master to place him in" (10). § 95. Special liability of the master in cases of contract with a third party. In certain cases,... | |
 | William Williamson Kerr - 1910 - 670 pages
...applies equally to all such cases. It may he that the master has not authorised the particular act, but he has put the agent in his place to do that class of acts, and he is answerable for the manner in which that agent has conducted himself in doing the business which... | |
 | 1916 - 1090 pages
...that the master had not authorized the act. It is true he has not authorized the particular act, but he has put the agent in his place to do that class...and he must be answerable for the manner in which that agent has conducted himself in doing the business which it was the act of his master to place... | |
 | 1911 - 1064 pages
...authorized the particular act, but he has put the agent in his place to do that class of acts, and he is answerable for the manner in which the agent has conducted himself in doing the business with which the principal has intrusted him. See Barwclc v. English Joint Stock Bank in the Exchequer... | |
| |
