PART IV.] LIABILITY FOR TORTS OF AGEXTS. [§ 341. furtherance of that business and the master's interest, the master will be responsible, whether the act be done negli- gently, wantonly, or even wilfully. . . . But if a servant goes outside of his employment, and without regard to his service, acting maliciously, or in order to effect some purpose of his own, wantonly commits a trespass, or causes damages to another, the master is not responsible ; so that the inquiry is whether the wrongful act is in the course of the employment, or outside of it, and to accomplish a purpose foreign to it. In the latter case the relation of master and servant does not exist so as to hold the master for the act." 1 § 340. So far as to the general liability of a corporation for the torts of its agents, as based on principles not corpora- wholly applicable to a corporation's responsibility for ^bfe^or its agent's contracts. It must not be inferred, how- torts on priiiciplGS ever, that a corporation is not also liable for the torts rendering of its agents and servants on principles which regu- for e con- a ° late its liability for its agent's contracts. For, subject tracts - to the qualification regarding ultra vires acts above mentioned, a corporation is liable for any tort which it authorizes expressly, or which is fairly within the general scope of the authority of the agents who do the wrongful act. § 341. To sum up : a corporation will be responsible for the torts of its servants and agents, (1) if the corporation or corporate management acting within the scope of |™" ary ' its powers, authorized or ratified the tort, or the tort was fairly within the scope of the tort-feasor's authority to act for the corporation ; or (2) if the tort was committed in the course of the tort-feasor's employment by the corporation ; or (3) if the tort occasioned a violation of any duty or obligation owed by the corporation to the injured person. And in apply- ing the doctrines of ultra vires to the liability of corporations for the torts of their agents and servants, it must be remembered that those doctrines are never applicable to the actual tort ; though they may operate to relieve a corporation from respon- sibility where the entire employment of the agent or servant, 1 See, also, Poulton v. London and I western R'y Co., L. R. 5 C. P. 445 ; Southwestern R'y Co., L. R. 2 Q. B, Allen v. London and Southwestern 534; Edwards v. London and North- ' R'y Co., L. R. 6 Q. B. 65. 317
