This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1879 Excerpt: ...engineer by whom he was hired. He was entirely blameless and should not have been held liable. J. Brotherson, for the respondents. Vvillard, J. If the Saratoga and Schenectady Railroad Company would have been liable to the plaintiff for the killing of his cow on the occasion in question, had the action been brought against them, the defendants are also liable. The master is liable for the acts of the servant while acting within the scope of his authority, upon the principle that what a mar does by another he does by himself. (Reeve's Dom. Rel. 356 et seq.) When the act is a tort, arising from the negligence of the servant, while in the service and legitimate business of the master, the master and servant are both liable. (Ib. And set Wright v. Wilcox, 19 Wvid. 343.) The question then recurs, would the railroad company have been liable upon this evidence, had the action been brought against them? The charter to that company was granted on the 16th February, 1831, (Laws of 1831, p. 41, ) and the 15th section enacts that the corporation shall possess the general powers, and be subject to the general restrictions and liabilities prescribed by such parts of the eighteenth chapter of the first part ot the revised statutes, as are not repealed. The chaitet Suydam v. Mooie. is silent as to their erecting fences, except upon the line of their road, by the 10th section, and has no provision as to cattle-guards. And there is no clause in the charter reserving to the legislature the right to alter or amend it, without the consent of the company, unless the 15th section, above cited, contains such authority. By title 3, ch. 18 of part 1st of the revised statutes, 8, it is thus enacted, "The charter of every corporation, that shall hereafter be granted by the ...