Supreme Court of United States.
*520 Mr. Grosvenor Lowrey and Mr. Joseph S. Auerbach, for plaintiff in error, submitted on their brief.
Mr. W.P. Clough, Mr. John W. Willis and Mr. Charles A. Ebert, for defendant in error.
*522 MR. JUSTICE GRAY, after stating the case as above reported, delivered the opinion of the court.
The general rules that must govern this case are undisputed, and the only controversy is as to their application to the contract between the defendant company and Corbett, the driver, by whose negligence the plaintiff was injured.
A master is liable to third persons injured by negligent acts done by his servant in the course of his employment, although the master did not authorize or know of the servant's act or *523 neglect, or even if he disapproved or forbade it. Philadelphia & Reading Railroad v. Derby, 14 How. 468, 486. And the relation of master and servant exists whenever the employer retains the right to direct the manner in which the business shall be done, as well as the result to be accomplished, or, in other words, "not only what shall be done, but how it shall be done." Railroad Co. v. Hanning, 15 Wall. 649, 656.
The contract between the defendant and Corbett, upon the construction and effect of which this case turns, is entitled "Canvasser's Salary and Commission Contract." The compensation to be paid by the company to Corbett, for selling its machines, consisting of "a selling commission" on the price of machines sold by him, and "a collecting commission" on the sums collected of the purchasers, is uniformly and repeatedly spoken of as made for his "services." The company may discharge him by terminating the contract at any time, whereas he can terminate it only upon ten days' notice. The company is to furnish him with a wagon; and the horse and harness to be furnished by him are "to be used exclusively in canvassing for the sale of said machines and the general prosecution of said business."
But what is more significant, Corbett "agrees to give his exclusive time and best energies to said business," and is to forfeit all his commissions under the contract, if while it is in force he sells any machines other than those furnished to him by the company; and he further "agrees to employ himself under the direction of the said Singer Manufacturing Company, and under such rules and instructions as it or its manager at Minneapolis shall prescribe."
In short, Corbett, for the commissions to be paid him, agrees to give his whole time and services to the business of the company; and the company reserves to itself the right of prescribing and regulating not only what business he shall do, but the manner in which he shall do it; and might, if it saw fit, instruct him what route to take, or even at what speed to drive.
The provision of the contract, that Corbett shall not use the name of the company in any manner whereby the public or any individual may be led to believe that it is responsible for *524 his actions, does not and cannot affect its responsibility to third persons injured by his negligence in the course of his employment.
The Circuit Court therefore rightly held that Corbett was the defendant's servant, for whose negligence in the course of his employment, the defendant was responsible to the plaintiff. Railroad Co. v. Hanning, above cited; Linnehan v. Rollins, 137 Mass. 123; Regina v. Turner, 11 Cox Crim. Cas. 551.
Judgment affirmed.
