case NICKSON against BROHAN if a master send a clerk who have the general  management of his cash concern with a note to a banker to receive the money  and the servant instead of so do get another person to give he a draft upon  the banker for it and the banker fail before the draft be present the master  be liable for the loss a master send his servant who be use to transact affair  of that nature for he on Saturday morning with a note draw upon sir Stephen  Evans with order to get from sir Stephen either bank bill S or money and turn  they into exchequer note modern report er p but the servant have other  business of his master upon his hand to save himself the time and trouble of  go to sir Stephen go to b and prevail with he to give he a bank bill for the  note upon sir Stephen and then in pursuance of his master order invest it in  exchequer note which he bring to his master not let he know but that he have  go to sir Stephen sir Stephen Evans fail upon the Monday follow the question  be upon who this loss shall light b or the master Parker chief justice who try  the cause be first of opinion that it shall fall upon b because the servant  act direct contrary to his master order and b by furnish the servant with a  bank bill do the master no service at all for if he have not do it the servant  must in obedience to his master order have go and receive himself the money  from sir Stephen and cite the case of ware v Evans a salk ld raym comy Rep Mod  salk Mod holt a where it be resolve modern report that if a servant send to  receive money take a bill in lieu of it the master be not bind by the act of  the servant unless the bill be answer but one of the jury inform he that he  take the practice to be otherwise for that whether a servant use to act upon  the credit of his master go against the order of the master be a fact that can  not be know to a three person he quit his opinion but direct the counsel to  move the court of king bench which be accord do the substance of what be say  upon the motion in favour of the master be that the servant go contrary to his  order and there be no subsequent consent of the master who know nothing of the  matter the act of the servant shall not bind the master accord to the case of  ware v Evans b salk b hanky v Watts and Thorold v smith d Mod holt see the  case of southern v how cro James d a master command his servant to sell his  horse the servant sell he as a good one no action against the master e see  godb roll Rep roll Abr and the case of Fenn v Harrison term Rep in which last  case Ashhurst justice say I take the distinction to be that if a person keep  liverystable and have a horse to sell direct his servant not to warrant he and  the servant nevertheless warrant he the master will be liable on the warranty  because the servant be act within the general scope of his authority and the  public can be suppose conversant of any private conversation between the  master and servant but if the owner of a horse be to send a stranger to a fair  with express direction not to warrant the horse and the latter act contrary to  the order the purchaser can only have recourse to the person who actual sell  the horse and the owner will not be liable on the warranty because the servant  be not act within the scope of his employment for there be a wide distinction  between general and particular agent e but the court be all of opinion that  the verdict be well give and that the master be Chargeable and he only for a  servant by transact affair for his master do thereby derive a general  authority and credit from he and if this general authority shall be liable to  be determine for a time by any particular instruction or order to which none  but the master and servant be privy there will be a end of all deal but with  the master the master have put himself in the power of the servant by trust he  with the bill the case of monk v Clayton a Molloy Cun on bill notorious facts  a be where the act of a servant though out of place bind his master by reason  of the former credit give he by his master service the other not know that he  be discharge and as for the case put there be this main difference between  they that nothing come to modern report the master use as here the note do in  some of those case there be a prior debt but none here it be agree by the  court that the property of the note be not transfer and vest in b but be only  in nature of a depositum or security to he for there be no endorsement nor can  he have sue upon the bill and though practice can alter the law yet it may  explain a agreement they be likewise of opinion that the master can not  recover it of the servant the loss be occasion by a mere accident and not  either modern report er p folly or negligence if a master frequent send a  servant to market without ready money so that the servant be trust upon the  master account if in such a case the servant embezzle the money when he be  send with it and buy upon trust the master be Chargeable but not if be always  be send with ready money b see Southby v wiseman keb hazard v Treadwell stram  Kendal v Andrews espin dig b