SUPREME COURT OF THE CANAL ZONE.

forcibly ejected by the conductor from one of the defendant's trains.
The gravamen of that decision was, as we read it, that the plaintiff failed to show that he sustained a contractual relation with the defendant company and that, so far as the acts ex-delicto were concerned, they were committed by the conductor outside of the scope of his authority; that in committing the assault upon the plaintiff the defendant's conductor was acting, not as the conductor or representative of the company, but in his individual capacity. Such facts would, of course, relieve a defendant company from liability upon well-recognized principles of the doctrine of respondeat supex ior in the United States. But if it be conceded that the case of Ramirez vs. The Panama Railroad Company did, in effect, hold that the railroad company was not liable for the tortuous act of its servant or agent, we must look to other decisions, and particularly those of Restrepo vs. The Sabana Railroad Company, and Jaramillo vs. Davila, for a more extended consideration of the Panamanian and Colombian courts in this respect. The case of Restrepo vs. The Sabana Railroad Company was an action against the company to recover damages for the construction of a right-of-way across the property of the plaintiff without his acquiescence and consent, as well as for the destruction of cattle and horses by trains of the defendant company. The court held that no judgment could be rendered against the company for the unlawful occupancy of the land because this constituted a penal offense, but that nevertheless the company was liable for damages for the killing of the cattle; and it would appear that the only reason that judgment in a fixed sum was not rendered against the company was that no sufficient proof was introduced to show the value of the cattle injured and killed. In the case of Jaramillo vs. Davila the construction of article 5 of law 62 of 1887, relating to the empresarios of railroads, came directly before the Supreme Court of Bogota in the year 1897. That case was for damages resulting from burning of plaintiff's house by reason of the escaping of sparks from the smokestack of a locomotive which belonged to the defendant. The Supieme Court of Bogota sustained the judgment of about four thousand pesos in favor of the plaintiff. In that case the defendant offered proof tending to show that the engineer was a good, skilful, prudent employee, and contended that it was, therefore, relieved from liability by reason of the provisions of articles 2347 and 2349, and the defendant insisted, ac is insisted

124