¶1 The trial court was indefinite in explaining to the jury the distinction between the relation of master and servant and that of principal and agent or factor. The former relation arises out of a contract of employment between a master or employer and a servant or employee, and usually contemplates the employer’s right both to prescribe the end and to direct the means and methods of doing the work. *620 In a specific sense a servant is one who represents the will of the master, not only in the ultimate result of the work, but in the details by which the result is accomplished. True, the law of principal and agent is an expansion of the law of master and servant, and in certain cases the distinction between the two is of slight importance. In other cases the distinction is decisive of legal rights. For example, a factor is an agent, but he is not deemed to be a servant within the range of the technical relation of master and servant. In pursuance of his business or trade he receives goods from his principal and sells them for a compensation called factorage or commission. Winslow v. Staton, 150 N. C., 264. The title may be in the principal, but the peculiarity of the transaction is that the owner places the goods in the hands of the agent or factor with authority to sell in his own name without disclosing the agency or the name of the principal. 11 R. C. L., 753; Jewelry Co. v. Joyner, 159 N. C., 644.
¶2 In the present ease the jury under instructions on this point might reasonably have found from the evidence that the Eawls-Dickson Candy Company had consigned the goods to Taylor as a factor and was interested only in the collection of the price at which the goods were consigned; that the company did not own or have any interest in the ear driven by Taylor; that it had nothing to do with Taylor’s means of travel; and that it was not liable to the plaintiff for damages arising out of his negligence at the time of the collision. On these questions the appellant was entitled to more specific instructions. Jeffrey v. Man. Co., 197 N. C., 725; Martin v. Bus Line, ibid., 720.
¶3 New trial. •