Each is performing his allotted function in the joint enterprise. Therefore, the presumption stated in Ellis Lewis v. Trimble, 182 Okla. 414, 78 P.2d 312, does not apply. In Guaranty Mortgage Co. of Nashville v. Bryant, 179 Tenn. 579, 168 S.W.2d 182, the Supreme Court of Tennessee, commenting on a similar situation, said:

In all of the cases cited by the plaintiff the fact that the duty which the employee was performing was the obligation of the party being sued was invariably supported by substantial evidence or admitted, so that there was no occasion to resort to an assumption in the first instance as plaintiff has done in this case. Barnsdall Refining Co. v. State Industrial Com., 163 Okla. 154, 21 P.2d 749; the Peppard Case, supra; Ellis Lewis, Inc., v. Trimble, 177 Okla. 5, 57 P.2d 244; and Ellis Lewis, Inc., v. Trimble, 182 Okla. 414, 78 P.2d 312. This court has, on proper occasion, permitted the indulgence of one presumption or inference following another, Gypsy Oil Co. v. Ginn, 152 Okla. 30, 3 P.2d 714, and on other occasions where the evidence did not justify, has declined to permit a presumption to be based upon another presumption, or an inference to be based upon another inference.

The fact that plaintiff further alleged that the instrumentality which had been used in the commission of the tort was the property of the agent did not negative liability on the part of the defendant in error. Ellis Lewis v. Trimble, 182 Okla. 414, 78 P.2d 312. We are of the opinion, and hold, that the demurrer of the defendant in error should have been overruled. City of Norman v. Finley, 186 Okla. 329, 97 P.2d 761. For the reasons above stated, the cause is reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the views herein expressed.