
    Benjamin W. Cook, Respondent, v. Edward H. Craig, Appellant.
    Kansas City Court of Appeals,
    June 15, 1885.
    1. Affirmance. — No error appearing in the record, the judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.
    Appeal from Daviess Circuit Court, Hon. C. H. S. Goodman, J.
    
      Affirmed.
    
    This was a suit to recover damages for a hog belonging to plaintiff and alleged to have been driven away and converted by defendant. The evidence for the plaintiff tended to show his ownership and that the value of the hog was twenty dollars, and that it was shipped with others, by railroad, under directions of defendant. The evidence for defendant was that he bought and shipped hogs as agent for Boston parties, and the hogs were shipped in their name, but he was to have a part of profits, if any, but was not to share in losses, but knew nothing of plaintiff’s hog.
    Defendant asked instructions to the. effect that it must appear that defendant forcibly and unlawfully took possession of said hog and appropriated it to his own use, and it was not enough that it was shipped with other hogs, to establish a conversion, and that the evidence did not show a conversion by defendant. These instructions were refused by the court. There was a judgment for plaintiff. Motion for new trial upon the usual grounds, which was overruled and excepted to. Appeal duly prosecuted to this court.
    O. J. Chapman and F. H. Brauden, for the appellant.
    1. Defendant was not personally liable for tort committed by men in his employ and in his absence, and without his knowledge or direction. Bins v. Cook, 60 Mo. 391; 2 Kent Com. (12 Ed.) 260; Wright n. Wilcox, 19 Wendell (N. Y.) 343.
    II. The agent or servant is alone responsible to third person for his own wrong and not the principal or master. Harriman «. Stowe, 57 Mo. 93; Phelps n. Wait, 30 N. Y. 78.
    III. Defendant was himself agent for others, and in no event could be made amenable as principal for his servants, he not knowing of or participating personally in the wrong. Story on Agency, sects. 452 and 504; same, sects. 465 and 477.
    IY. The complaint alleges that the taking of said hog was “forcibly and unlawfully,” and this charge is not sustained by the evidence. Abbott’s Trial Evidence, 622 and 626.
    No brief appears on file for respondent.
   Opinion by

Hall, J.

This was a suit, begun before a justice of -the peace, to - recover damages for a hog belonging to plaintiff alleged to have been driven away by defendant and converted to his own use.

After an examination of the record in this case we have been nnable to perceive any error committed by the circuit court in the trial thereof.

The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.

All concur.  