boulton versus ARLSDEN pasch will B R at the sit at guildhall in person holt  chief justice ld Raymond where the master be not liable for his servant see  Wilson in this case it be hold that where a servant usual buy for his master  upon tick and take up thing in his master name but for his own use that the  master be liable but it be not so where the master usual give he ready money a  that where the master give the servant money to buy good for he and he convert  the money to his own use and buy the good upon tick yet the master be liable  so as the good come to his use otherwise not a Salkeld that a note under the  hand of a apprentice shall bind his master where he be allow to deliver out  note though the money be never apply to the master use but where he be not  allow or accustom to deliver out note there his note shall not bind the master  unless the money be apply to the master use a factor of the eastindia company  carry over in gold to India where a custom be due for it but save by the  factor and never pay et per curian the factor shall have the benefit of it and  not the eastindia company for it be due from they and ought to have be pay  therefore they can make a title to it against one who have the possession for  that be sufficient against all person but against he who have the very right  and the nonpayment in this case be at the peril of the factor a vide ac Str a  if the master never have any previous deal with a tradesman but the tradesman  deal have all be with the servant who the master have regular pay in that case  the master shall not be charge as where the action be for oat and hay furnish  for the defendant horse the plaintiff have have no deal with the master but  with the coachman to who the master give money for the purpose monthly the  plaintiff never apply to the defendant the master during the time and the  demand be for year stand it be rule that the master be not liable per Lord  Kenyon at nisi prius Espinasse miscasting see money misnomer