— Part IX.
—
Relations between Principal and Third Persons.
by his agent by a judgment (d) being obtained against the agent, although such judgment remains unsatisfied (e). Sub-Sect.
2.
Limitations on PrincipaVs Eesponsihility
213
Principal's Liability for Agent's
.
Torts, 451. The Crown cannot in any way be made responsible for any wrongful act committed by any public agent (/). CrownT" Nor can a trade union, whether of workmen or masters, be in rj.^^^^ union, any way made responsible for any tortious act alleged to have been committed by or on behalf of such trade union (g).
452. A corporation is responsible, like any other principal, for any wrongful act committed by its agent whilst acting within the scope of his employment (h), provided that the act done is not outside the power of the corporation (i). But where the corporation is a local authority and the agent an officer appointed by it, the responsibility of the authority for his wrongful acts depends upon whether the act done purports to be done by virtue of corporate authority or by virtue of something imposed as a public obligation to be done, not by the local authority, but by such officer (A;). Where the corporation delegates to such officer duties which it has to perform, or powers which it is entitled to exercise, it is responsible for his wrongful acts (Q, provided that they fall within the scope of his employment (m), and provided that proceedings are taken within the proper time (n). But if the sole duty of the authority is merely to appoint the officer, and the duties to be performed by him are of a public nature and have no peculiar local characteristics, the local authority is not responsible for acts of neghgence or misfeasance on his part (o). (d) Or by the award of compensation in criminal proceedings [Wright v. London General Omnibus Co, (1877), 2 Q. B. D. 271), but not by the infliction of punishment {Byer v. Munday, [1895] 1 Q. B. 742). See, further, title Tort. (e) Brinsmead v. Harrison (1872), L. E. 7 C. P. 547. (/) Feather v. R. (1865), 6 B. & S. 257; Tohin v. R. (1864), 16 0. B. (n. s.) 310; Viscount Canterbury y. A.-G. (1842), 1 Ph. 306; Palmer y. Hutchinson See, further, title Constitutional Law, and see also (1881), 6 App. Cas. 619.
note ig)
(?),
p. 224. jjost.
Trade Disputes Act, 1906
(6
Edw.
7,
c.
47),
s.
4.
See
title
Trade and
Trade Unions. (h) Even where
the wrongful act involves fraud [Barivich v. English Joint (1867), L. E. 2 Bxch. 259; Houldsiuorth v. City of Glasgoiu Bank (1880), 5 App. Cas. 317, per Lord Selborne at p. 326), or actual malice, as in libel where privilege is proved ( 6Viize?is' Zv'/e ^ssiArance Co.y. Broivn, [1904] A. C. 423, J. C), or in malicious prosecution [Bank of Neio South Wales y. OwstonllSId), 4 App. Cas. 270 Cornford v. Carlton Bank, [1900] 1 Q. B. 22 ; Ediuards Y. Midland Rail. Co. (1880), 6 Q. B. D. 287). (i) Poulton V. London and South Western Rail. Co. (1867), L. E. 2 Q. B. 534 ; Mill V. Haivker (1874), L. E. 9 Exch. 309. (k) Stanbury v. Exeter Corporation, [1905] 2 K. B. 838,_per Darling, J., at p. 843. (0 Ibid., per Lord Alverstone, C.J., at p. 841. (m) Mersey Locks Trustees y. Gibbs{186^), L. E. 1 H. L. 93; The Rhosina (1885), 10 P. D. 131; Coe v. Wise (1866), L. E. 1 Q. B. 711 Scott y. Manchester Corporation (1857), 2 H. &]Sr. 204; Garlick v. Knottingley Urban District Coimcy7 (1904), 68 J. P. 494. (n) L.e., within six months of the act complained of (Public Authorities Protection Act, 1893 (56 & 57 Yict. c. 61), s. 1, and see Parker v. London County Council, [1904] 2 K. B. 501 The Ydun, [1899] P. 236). See title Public Stock
Bank
Authorities and Public Officers. (o)
Stanbury
v.
Exeter
Corporation,
supra,
per Wills,
J.,
at
p.
843
Corporation,
Local authority,
