Mendell

By the general principles of the civil as well as the common law, the principal is responsible for the wrongful acts of his agent, done in the execution of his agency (Paley, Ag. p. 3, § 1; Poth. Obl. No. 453, 456; Domat. Civ. Law, tit. 16, § 3; Story, Ag. § 452 et seq.), and the liability is familiarly imposed as well for injuries to the person as for damages to property. On this principle depends the responsibility of owners for damages by collision and for injuries to the goods of shippers. The ship owner has ever been held liable fpr the tortious abduction of a minor child by the master, and this too without notice of the master’s acts. Sherwood v. Hall [Case No. 12,777]; Steele v. Thacher [Id. 13,348]; Plummer v. Webb [Id. 11,234]; 7 D. Rep. 132. Although at common law the principal has been held not liable for acts of wilful and intentional wrong on the part of an agent, but only for the consequences of his negligence and unskilfullness, the maritime law carries his vicarious responsibility much further. By that law the owner is liable for all the acts of the master done in the execution of the business for which he is employed, by which third parties are injured, whether…