— Although  a  servant  may  be  considered
a  vice-principal,  yet  the  employer  is  not
liable  to  an  employee  for  his  negligence  in
doing  the  duty  of  a  co-employee  of  the
person  injured.  Quinn  v.  New  Jersey
Lighterage  Co.,  23  Fed.   Rep.  363;   coni-


office  "  in  the  city  where  the  plaintiff  was
employed,  does  not,  in  ihe  absence  of
further  allegations  showing  what  the
duties  and  powers  of  such  agent  were,
create  the  presumption  that  he  was  a
vice-principal^  for  whose  negligent  acts,
resulting  in  injury  to  its  employees,  the
express  company  would  be  liable.  And
especially  does  not  such  presumption
arise  where  the  complaint  further  shows
that  the  acts  from  which  the  injury  re-
sulted were  done  by  such  agent  while
engaged  as  driver  of  the  team  drawing
goods  between  the  company's  office  and
the  depots,  and  while  defendant  was  rid-
ing to  and  fro,  assisting  in  loading  and
unloading  such  goods?  Dwyer  v.  Amer-
ican Exp.  Co.,  55  Wis.  453.
That  one  is  a  vice- principal  for  a  cer-
tain purpose,  does  not  make  him  an  alter
ego  of  the  master  when  acting  in  another


capacity.     Quinn  z^.  N.  J.  Lighterage  Co.,     /ar^  Berea  Stone  Co.  z^.  Croft,  31   Ohio-


23  Fed.  Rep.  363.
1.  Brick  V,  Rochester,  etc.,  R.  Co.,  98
N.  Y.  511;  s.  c,  21  Am.  &  Eng.  R.  R.
Cas.  605;  Malone  v,  Hathaway,  64  N.  Y.
5;  Sherman  v.  Rochester,  etc.,  R.  Co.,
17  N.  Y.  153;  Hvfnagle  v.  New  York,
etc.,  R.  Co..  55  N.  Y.  608;  Blake  v,
Maine  Central  R.  Co.,  70  Me.  60;  Law-
ler  V.  Androscoggin  R.  Co.,  62  Me.  463;
Conley  v.  Portland,  78  Me.  217;  Key-
stone Bridge  Co.  v,  Newberry,  96  Pa.  St.
