enlarged the sphere of compensation for bodily injuries.  Interpretation enlarged the Aquilian law.  Masters became personally liable for certain wrongs committed by their slaves with their knowledge, where previously they were only bound to surrender the slave. 2 If a pack-mule threw off his burden upon a passer-by because he had been improperly overloaded, or a dog which might have been restrained escaped from his master and bit any one, the old noxal action, as it was called, gave way to an action under the new law to enforce a general personal liability. 3 Still later, ship-owners and innkeepers were made liable [16] as if they were wrong-doers for wrongs committed by those in their employ on board ship or in the tavern, although of course committed without their knowledge.  The true reason for this exceptional responsibility was the exceptional confidence which was necessarily reposed in carriers and innkeepers. 1 But some of the jurists, who regarded the surrender of children and slaves as a privilege intended to limit liability, explained this new liability on the ground that the innkeeper or ship-owner was to a certain degree guilty of negligence in having employed the services of bad men?  This was the first instance of a master being made unconditionally liable for the wrongs of his servant.  The reason given for it was of general application, and the principle expanded to the scope of the reason.

The law as to ship-owners and innkeepers introduced another and more startling innovation.  It made them responsible when those whom they employed were free, as well as when they were slaves. 3 For the first time one man was made answerable for the wrongs of another who was also answerable himself, and who had a standing before the law.  This was a great change from the bare permission to ransom one’s slave as a privilege.  But here we have the history of the whole modern doctrine of master and servant, and principal and agent.  All servants are now as free and as liable to a suit as their masters.  Yet the principle introduced on special grounds in a special case, when servants were slaves, is now the general law of this country and England, and under it men daily have to pay large sums for other people’s acts, in which they had no part and [17] for which they are in no sense to blame.  And to this day the reason offered by the Roman jurists for an exceptional rule is made to justify this universal and unlimited responsibility. 1

So much for one of the parents of our common law.  Now let us turn for a moment to the Teutonic side.  The Salic Law embodies usages which in all probability are of too early a date to have been influenced either by Rome or the Old Testament.  The thirty-sixth chapter of the ancient text provides that, if a man is killed by a domestic animal, the owner of the animal shall pay half the composition (which he would have had to pay to buy off the blood feud had he killed