Cited by

Tyrholm & Co., compels a different result .

In Miller v. J. A. Tyrholm & Co. Inc. 196 Minn. 438 , , decided in 1936, 30 years after the Strom case, the court was called upon to consider whether a wife, injured by her husband’s negligence while driving the automobile of a third person, with his consent, could recover from the latter.

Thus, in Miller v. J. A. Tyrholm & Co. Inc. 196 Minn. 438 , *374 , it was held that a wife might bring an action against the owner of an automobile negligently driven by her husband for injuries she sustained while riding as a passenger therein, even though she could not have sued her husband directly therefor and even though the owner might subsequently have r

Co. 235 Minn. 304 , 50 N. W. (2d) 689 ; Lunderberg v. Bierman, 241 Minn. 349 , 63 N. W. (2d) 355 , 43 A. L. R. (2d) 865; Miller v. J. A. Tyrholm & Co. Inc. 196 Minn. 438 , ; and from other jurisdictions, especially Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines, Inc. v. Rosenthal, 14 N. J. 372, 102 A. (2d) 587.

In that case, this court said ( 196 Minn. 473 , ) : “* * That is not the case, however, for the statute does not alter the rule that, with an exception recently noted (Skolnick v. Gruesner, 196 Minn. 318 , ), cases will be disposed of on appeal within the limits of consideration fixed by the theory upon which they have been tried.

In Miller v. J. A. Tyrholm & Co. Inc. 196 Minn. 488 , , it was held that a wife could recover from a statutory principal for a tort committed against her by her husband as the principal’s agent.

Under the doctrine of Miller v. J. A. Tyrholm & Co. Inc. 196 Minn. 438 , , a husband’s immunity from suit in tort by the wife does not inure to the benefit of the owner of the automobile for whom the husband was acting as agent.

As stated in Restatement, Agency, § 217: “(2) A master or other principal is not liable for acts of a servant or other agent which the agent is privileged to do although the principal himself would not be so privileged; but he may be liable for an act as to which the agent has a personal immunity from suit.” See, also, Miller v. J. A. Tyrholm & Co. Inc. 196 Minn. 438 , .

It was pointed out (p. 539, ) that the father was not liable for the injuries he caused to his minor child and that the liability of Skilbeck as partner of the father was “no greater and no less than the liability of the one causing the injury.” Miller v. J. A. Tyrholm & Co. 196 Minn. 438 , , relied upon by plaintiff, is clearly distinguishable, because there a corporation, not a partnership, was held liable for the negligence of its agent even though the plaintiff was the agent’s wife.

Plaintiff cites with some assurance Miller v. J. A. Tyrholm Co. Inc. 196 Minn. 438 , 265 N.W.

Plaintiff cites with some assurance Miller v. J. A. Tyrholm & Co. Inc. 196 Minn. 438 , , but a reading of that decision will readily convince an open mind that it is not determinative of the question now presented.

We do not regard Belleson v. Skilbeck, 185 Minn. 537 , , or Miller v. J. A. Tyrholm & Co. Inc. 196 Minn. 438 , , as in any way conflicting.

Patterson-Stocking, Inc. v. Dunn Bros. Storage Warehouses, Inc. 201 Minn. 308 , ; Miller v. J. A. Tyrholm & Co. Inc. 196 Minn. 438 , ; Steinle v. Beckwith, 198 Minn. 424 , .

See Miller v. Tyrholm & Co. Inc. 196 Minn. 438 , .