226/3 Y.B. 21 Hen.  VII. 14, pl. 21; 13 Co.  Rep. 69.

227/1 They have been said to be a part of the family pro hac vice.  Southcote v.  Stanley, 1 H. & N. 247, 250.  Cf.  Y.B. 2 Hen.  IV. 18, pl. 6.

227/2 Moore, 248, pl. 392; S.C., Owen, 52; F. N. B. 91 E; 2 B1.  Comm. 396; 1 H. Bl. 81, 84; 1 Chitty, Pl. 170 (1st ed.); Dicey, Parties, 358; 9 Mass. 104; 7 Cowen, 294; 3 S. & R. 20; 13 Iredell, 18; 6 Barb. 362, and cases cited.  Some of the American cases have been denied, on the ground that the custodian was not a servant.  Cf.  Holiday v.  Hicks, Cro.  Eliz. 638, 661, 746; Drope v.  Theyar, Popham, 178, 179.

228/1 Bracton, fol. 6 a, Section 3, 12 a, 17 a, Cap.  V. ad fin., 25 a, b, etc.; Pucbra, Inst.  Section 228.

228/2 See also 7 Am.  Law Rev. 62 et seq.; 10 Am.  Law Rev. 431; 2 Kent, Comm. (12th ed.), 260, n. 1.

228/3 1 Comm. 427.  Cf.  Preface to Paley on Agency.  Factors are always called servants in the old books, see, e. g., Woodlife’s Case, Owen, 57; Holiday v.  Hicks, Cro.  Eliz. 638; Southcote’s Case, 4 Co.  Rep. 83 b, 84 a; Southern v.  How, Cro.  Jac. 468; St. 21 Jac.  I., c. 16, Section 3; Morse v.  Slue, 3 Keble, 72.  As to bailiffs, see Bract. 26 b, “Reestituat domino, vel servienti,” etc.; Y.B. 7 Hen.  IV. 14, pl. 18.

229/1 Paley, Agency, c. 4, Section 1, citing Godbolt, 360.  See, further, F. N. B. 120, G; Fitzh.  Abr.  Dette, pl. 3; Y.B. 8 Ed. IV. 11, pl. 9.  These rules seem to be somewhat modern even as to servants.  The liability of a master for debts contracted by his servant is very narrowly limited in the earlier Year Books.

230/1 I am inclined to think that this extension has been largely due to the influence of the Roman law.  See Lecture I. p. 20, n. 1, and observe the part which the precedents as to fire (e. g., Y.B. 2 Hen.  IV. 18, pl. 6) have played in shaping the modern doctrine of master and servant.  Tuberville v.  Stampe, I Ld.  Raym. 264 (where Lord Holt’s examples are from the Roman law); Brucker v.  Fromont, 6 T. R. 659; M’Manus v.  Crickett, 1 East, 106; Patten v.  Rea, 2 C.B.  N.S. 606.  In Southern v.  How, Popham, 143, Doctor and Student is referred to for the general principles of liability.  Doctor and Student states Roman law.  See, further, Boson v.  Sandford, 1 Shower, 101, 102.

230/2 Bac.  Ahr.  Master and Servant, K; Smith, Master and Servant (3d ed.), 260, n. (t).

230/3 Clapp v.  Kemp, 122 Mass. 481; Murray v.  Currie, L.R. 6 C.P. 24, 28; Hill v.  Morey, 26 Vt. 178.

230/4 See, e.g., Patten v.  Rea, 2 C.B.  N.S. 606; Bolingbroke v.  Swindon Local Board, L.R. 9 C.P. 575.

230/5 Freeman v.  Rosher, 13 Q.B.780, 785; Gauntlett v.  King, 3 C. B. N.S. 59; Haseler v.  Lemoyne, 28 L. J. C.P. 103; Collett v.  Foster, 2 H. & N. 356; Barwick v.  English Joint Stock Bank, L.R. 2 Ex. 259, 265, 266; Lucas v.  Mason, L.R. 10 Ex. 251, 253, last paragraph; Mackay v.  Commercial Bank of New Brunswick, L.R. 5 P.C. 394, 411, 412.  So as to partners, 3 Kent’s Comm. (12th ed.), 46, notes (d) & 1.