
    Smith et. al. vs. Webster et. al.
    
    Liability of principal for trespass of agent or servant. Relation of muster and servant.
    Error to Jackson Circuit.
   Opinion by

Campbell, C. J.

Plaintiffs sued defendants- for trespass for the destruction of trees upon their lands. The alleged trespass was not committed by the defendants themselves, but by others in their employ who were engaged in cutting trees and gathering bark for defendants on their own lands, and went on plaintiff’s lands, as they claim by mistake.

The Circuit Court held that there was no liability in this action, unless the trespass was committed by the actual direction oí defendants, or was ratified by their assent, or appropriation of the property, with knowledge of the trespass. Aud the Court refused to charge that any wrongful act or negligence of the defendants whatever could subject them to this action.

It was claimed on the argument that the persons doing the wrong were not in law the servants of the defendants, but were in the position of independent contractors, for whose acts none but themselves and their immediate employees could be held liable.

Held, That the evidence warranted no such conclusion. The men were employed as laborers of defendants, subject entirely-'to their control. The intermediate agent was an overseer, and the acts complained of were done in the regular course of business, not wilfully. "'All these were servants of the defendants, and the latter-aré responsible for their acts. If the offence of the men would be trespass, there is no sense in holding the master exempt ficoni the same kind of' responsibility, and however the common law may have'been, the policy of our statutes would hold absent employers liable.

The action was properly brought, and the evidence tended to prove no other relation than that of master and servant.

Judgment reversed with costs, and a new trial ordered.  