¶1 We cannot hold, under the facts and circumstances of the ease, that the mischievous act of the defendant’s young son was in the scope of his employment and hold the defendant, his father, liable. It was a deplorable affair, but it was a boyish prank that so often brings disaster — but we cannot hold the father responsible.
¶2 The fact that defendant procured a doctor, took plaintiff to a hospital and paid the bill is in no. sense an implied admission or circumstance tending to admit liability. It was an act of mercy, a humanitarian act to repair as far as possible his boy’s mischievous conduct. Barber v. R. R., 193 N. C., at p. 696. The judgment of the court below is.
¶3 Affirmed.