Upon all the evidence taken in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, the plaintiff fails to bring himself within the doctrine of respondeat superior.
*253It appears tbat the defendant exercised no control over the operation of the truck. It was interested in the delivery of the tobacco sticks, and not in the steps leading to the delivery.
It is a settled principle of law that “where the contract is for something that may lawfully be done, and is proper in its terms, and there has been no negligence in selecting a suitable person to contract with in respect to it, and no general control is reserved either in respect to the manner of doing the work or the agents to be employed in it, and the person for whom the work is to be done is interested only in the ultimate result of the work, and not in the several steps as it progresses, the latter is not liable to third persons for the negligence of the contractor as his master. Cooley on Torts (2 Ed.), sec. 548, p. 646.” Craft v. Timber Co., 132 N. C., 152, at 158, 43 S. E., 597; Embler v. Lumber Co., 167 N. C., 457, at 462; Waters v. Lumber Co., 115 N. C., 652, 20 S. E., 718.
The judgment of the court below is Affirmed.