"It would be difficult to furnish a reason for the liability of a corporation for a fraud, under such circumstances, that would not apply to sustain an action for the publication of a libel."

The liability of a corporation for such torts as assault and battery or false imprisonment, is even clearer than in the case of torts of the character discussed in the above case. The question of the liability of a corporation for an assault and battery by its employes was thus discussed in another decision of the United States Supreme Court.13

"This action was brought by James Harris, the defendant in error, against the Denver and Rio Grande Railway Company, a corporation of the State of Colorado, to recover damages for injuries which, he alleges were sustained by him, in his person, by reason of an illegal and wrongful assault made by that company, acting by its servants and agents. The plea was not guilty. There was a verdict and judgment in favor of the plaintiff for $9,000. The judgment was affirmed in the Supreme Court of the Territory, and has been brought here for review.

"The defendant introduced no evidence, although its officers were the chief actors on the occasion when the plaintiff was injured. The case made by the latter and other witnesses testifying in his behalf is stated by the Supreme Court of the Territory, in the following extract from its opinion:

13 Denver, etc., R. Co. vs. Harris, 122 U. S., 597.

" 'The record discloses the fact that there was evidence on the trial in the lower court to the effect that about the tenth or twelfth of June, 1879, the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company was in peaceable possession, by the agents and employes, of a certain railroad in the State of Colorado, running from Alamosa to the City of Pueblo, in that State; that at or about that date, and while the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Company were so in possession of said railroad, the plaintiff in error, by an armed force of several hundred men, acting as its agents and employes, and under its vice president and assistant general manager, attacked with deadly weapons the agents and employes of said Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company, having charge of said railroad, and forcibly drove them from the same, and took forcible possession thereof; that there was a demonstration of armed men all along the line of the railroad seized; and while this was being done, and the seizure was being made, the defendant in error, who was an employe of the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company on said line of railroad, and while on the track of the road, and on a hand car thereon, in the line of his employment, was fired upon by men as he was passing, and seriously wounded, and injured; that immediately upon the seizure of the railroad as aforesaid, the plaintiff in error accepted it, and at once entered into possession thereof, and commenced and for a time continued to use and operate the same as its own.'

"Reference was made in argument to those portions of the charge that refer to the liability of Powers and liabilities of corporations. 159 corporations for torts committed by their employes and servants.

"In Philadelphia, W. & B. R. R. Co. vs. Quigley, 62 U. S., 21 How., 207, this court held that a railroad corporation was responsible for the publication by them of libel, in which the capacity and skill of a mechanic and builder of depots, bridges, station houses, and other structures for railroad companies were falsely and maliciously disparaged and undervalued. The publication in that case, consisted in the preservation in the permanent form of a book for distribution among the persons belonging to the corporation, of a report made by a committee of the company's board of directors, in relation to the administration and dealings of the plaintiff as a superintendent of the road. The Court, upon a full review of the authorities, held it to be the result of the cases, 'that for acts done by the agents of a corporation, either in contractu or in delicto, in the course of its business, and their employment, the corporation is responsible as an individual is responsible under similar circumstances.' In State vs. Morris & Essex R. R. Co., 23 N. J. L., 369, it was well said that, 'If a corporation has itself no hands with which to strike, it may employ the hands of others, and it is now perfectly well settled, contract to the ancient authorities, that a corporation is liable civiliter for all torts committed by its servants or agents by authority of the corporation, express or implied. . . . The result of the modern cases is that a corporation is liable civiliter for torts committed by its servants or agents precisely as a natural person; and that it is liable as a natural person; for the acts of its agents done by its authority, express or implied, though there be neither a written appointment under seal nor a vote of the corporation constituting the agency or authorizing the act.' See, also, Salt Lake City vs. Hollister, 118 U. S., 256, 260 (ante 176, 178); New Jersey Steamboat Co. vs. Brockett, present term, 121 U. S., 637 (ante 1049); National Bank vs. Graham, 100 U. S., 699, 702. The instructions given the jury were in harmony with these salutary principles. Whatever may be said of some expressions in the charge when detached from their context, the whole charge was as favorable to the defendant as it was entitled to demand upon the evidence."

There is probably no species of tort of which a corporation may not be guilty.