
    Knowlton & a. v. Hoit.
    A person, is not liable for damages resulting from the negligence or misfeasance of another in the performance of a lawful contract, unless the relation of master and servant, or principal and agent, exists, and the employer retains the control over the manner of executing the work.
    Trespass, qu. cl., for breaking and entering the plaintiffs’ close, and cutting and carrying away an oak tree, throwing down the plaintiffs’ fence and wall, and incumbering tbe plaintiffs’ land with brush. Facts found by tbe court.
    Tbe defendant bought the standing timber on a lot adjoining tbe plaintiffs’ land, and made a contract with one Hazen to cut tbe standing trees into lumber at an agreed price per thousand feet. Hazen performed tbe contract, hiring and paying bis men. Beyond making tbe contract and paying tbe price agreed, tbe defendant bad nothing to do with cutting the timber. Tbe defendant took tbe lumber from tbe lot. In felling tbe trees, some of them fell upon and across tbe plaintiffs’ fence and wall, breaking some of tbe boards and throwing down some of tbe top stones of the wall, and, in trimming them, some of tbe limbs were left on the plaintiffs’ land. The defendant afterwards repaired tbe wall and fence, and removed the most of tbe limbs and brush from tbe plaintiffs’ land. Tbe defendant does not own tbe land on which tbe timber was cut.
    The court found that tbe oak tree, for which the plaintiffs claim damages, was not on tbe plaintiffs’ land, and, being of tbe opinion that the defendant was not responsible for the injury to the plaintiffs’ wall, fence, and land by tbe acts of Hazen and bis men in cutting the lumber, found a verdict for tbe defendant; and tbe plaintiffs excepted.
    
      Thomas 0. Jfnowlton, for tbe plaintiffs.
    
      David A. Taggart, for tbe defendant.
   Smith, J.

Hazen was a contractor, exercising an independent employment, and selecting his own servants and workmen. He was not an ordinary laborer, personally engaged in tbe cutting of the trees, nor acting under control of tbe defendant. Tbe injuries of which tbe plaintiffs complain were not tbe natural result of tbe work contracted to be done. Tbe contract was to do an act in itself lawful, and tbe authority conferred by tbe defendant on Hazen was that of executing it in a lawful manner. Tbe maxim, respondeat superior, does not apply. Carter v. Berlin Mills Co., 58 N. H. 52.

Judgment for the defendant.

Clark, J., did not sit: tbe others concurred.  