entire, but partly executed, under the power when the notice of the revocation was received, and bind the principal by those acts which were required to consummate the business. The principal may, no doubt, be compelled to act in such a case, and indemnify the agent, but it seems difficult to sustain the act of the agent after his power has been revoked, for he becomes a stranger after the revocation is duly announced.

The agent's power is determined likewise by the bankruptcy Determined by the bankof his principal; but this does not extend to an authority to do ruptcy of the a mere formal act, which passes no interest, and which the principal, bankrupt himself might have been compelled to execute, notwithstanding his bankruptcy. Nor will the bankruptcy of the principal affect the personal rights of the agent, or his lien upon the proceeds of a remittance made to him under the orders of his principal before the bankruptcy, but received afterwards. If the principal or his agent was a feme sole when the power was given, it is determined, likewise, by her marriage; for the agent, after the marriage, cannot bind the husband without his authority, and the acts of a feme covert might prejudice her husband. Her warrant of attorney to confess judgment is countermanded by her marriage before the judgment is entered up. The authority of an agent determines by the death of his by the death of the prinprincipal, and a joint authority to two persons terminates by cipal.

the death of one of them.

of the female

principal or agent causes a authority.

revocation of

Portugal.-Besides the cases provided by the French civil. The marriage law, the Portuguese code provides that the agency ends by the marriage of the female who may have either given or received the authority. The authority may be revoked at any time, but the principal is bound to indemnify the agent for any outlays and damages he may have occasioned to him. In case of the death of the agent, or of any event which may render him incompetent to execute the authority, his heir must immediately give notice to the principal under penalty of damages and interest (a).

Spain. The principal has always the power at any stage of the business to revoke, alter, or modify his authority. There is a revocation of the authority in case of death of the agent, or of any other cause which renders him unfit to execute the

(4) Portuguese Code, $$ 818-825.

Death of the revocation of authority.

agent causes a

authority, notice being given of it to the party interested. As regards the principal, the authority is not deemed revoked by his death, so long as his lawful heirs do not revoke the same (a).

(a) Spanish Code, §§ 143-145.

CHAPTER VII.

HIRING AND SERVICE.

SECTION I.

CONTRACT OF HIRE AND SERVICE.

BRITISH LAWS.

A CONTRACT of hiring and service exists where there is an Definition and requisites express mutual engagement binding the parties one to employ of the conand remunerate and the other to serve for some determinate tract. term. When it is optional for either party to carry out the arrangement, there is no contract for hiring and service (a).

need not be

in writing.

A contract for hiring and service need not be in writing Contract unless it be for more than one year, and if in writing it need not be stamped, except in the case of apprenticeships. In the absence of a contract in writing, a hiring may be presumed from the fact of the service, so as to entitle the servant to claim customary and reasonable wages (b); but without an express or implied contract to pay wages, no action can be maintained for them (c). So the master is not bound to pay increased wages for increased labour unless he has engaged to do so (d).

tion of it.

In a covenant of hiring and service for a limited term, it is Implied dura an implied agreement that the service shall continue for the term so limited, and the employer is not at liberty to dismiss his servant at pleasure. And where by such a covenant the servant becomes bound to serve, he is entitled to his remuneration, though he may never be called upon or required to do any work (e).

(a) Williamson v. Taylor, 5 Q. B. 175; Dunn v. Sayle, 5 Q. B. 685. (b) Phillips v. Jones, 1 A. & E. 333.

(c) Foord v. Morl, Fost. & F. 496; Rex v. Thames Ditton, 4 Doug. 300.

(d) Bell v. Drummond, Peake, 45; Harris v. Watson, Peake, 76.

(e) Emmens v. Siderton, 13 C. B.; Reg. v. Welch, 2 E. & B. 362; Pilkington v. Scott, 16 M. & W. 600.

Hiring by the year, month, or week.

When wages are not settled remuneration is implied.

Payment of wages in kind prohibited.

Master not liable for ordinary injuries sustained by the workman.

The hiring may be by the year, by the month, or by the week. A hiring of a permanent nature upon annual wages is a yearly hiring, and does not expire till the termination of the year (a). A hiring at so many shillings a month or week's wages is a hiring by the month or by the week, unless there be other circumstances to show a different agreement between the parties (b).

If the amount of wages has not been settled, there is an implied promise of a customary and reasonable rate of remuneration. If it be left with the employed to determine whether or any and what wages should be paid for service rendered, no action could be maintained (c).

In contracts of hiring made with artificers, workmen, labourers, and other persons engaged or employed in mining, quarries, hardware, glass, porcelain, or in cotton, silk, and other manufactures, &c., the wages must be paid in the current coin of the realm, and not otherwise. An artificer or workman may recover his wages from his employer if not paid in the current coin, and in an action brought by a labourer for his wages no set-off is allowed for goods supplied to him by the employer, whilst the employer would have no action against his artificer or workman for goods supplied to him on account of wages (d).

The master is not responsible for injuries sustained by the servant whilst labouring in his service, although he is bound to provide for the safety of his servant in the exercise of his employment to the best of his judgment and information (e); nor is the master bound for surgical attendance to such a servant if he becomes injured whilst discharging his duties. When, however, by the negligence of the master an injury is caused to a servant in the course of his employment, the master is liable (ƒ). The servant must undertake what he is ordered by the master to perform in the ordinary discharge of his duties, though he

(a) Fawcett v. Cash, 5 B. & Ad. 908.

(b) Rex v. Pricklechurch, 5 East, 382; Rex v. Dodderhill, 3 M. & S. 243; Rex v. Lambeth, 3 M. & S. 315.

(c) Taylor v. Brewer, 1 M. & S. 290; Moffat v. Dickson, 13 C. B.

575; Moffat v. Lawrie, 15 C. B. 583. (d) 1 & 2 W. 4, c. 37.

(e) Priestley v. Fowler, 5 M. & W. 5; Paterson v. Wallace, 23 L. J. Q. B. 249.

(f) Ashworth v. Stanwix, 30 L. J. G. B. 183; Riley v. Baxendale, 30 L. J. Ex. 87.

may decline any service from which he may easily apprehend injury to himself.

servants.

It is the duty of the servant to serve his master faithfully, Duties of diligently, and honestly, to be obedient, and careful, and to fulfil his duties with due skill and knowledge (a). If he disobeys or absents himself from his work, or is otherwise guilty of misconduct or disobedience, or of moral turpitude, he may be dismissed before the expiration of his term of service (b).

In case of dismissal, the servant is entitled only to the wages which have accrued during the period of actual service, but in case of a wrongful dismissal he might even recover the wages which he has been prevented from earning (c).

Rights of dismissal.

servants on

The bankruptcy of the master does not ipso facto operate as Bankruptcy a dissolution of a contract of hiring and service.

does not dis solve the contract.

SECTION II.

COMBINATION LAWS.

BRITISH LAWS.

TORY OBSER-
VATIONS.

Considerable attention has of late been bestowed on the INTRODUC subject of wages, and on the right of workmen to combine among themselves and to strike or abandon their labour in case of dispute with their masters. In olden times the State misapprehending altogether the nature of wages, and the laws by which they are regulated, felt itself at liberty to fix the rates of wages by statute. It is easy to conceive how futile must every such attempt prove; but at last with a better knowledge of economical laws it was altogether abandoned. Of a similar character were our combination laws, which continued for much longer time to fill up the pages of our statute book. By a statute of Henry VI., any combination amongst workmen was made a capital offence. It was enacted by Edward VI. that if any artificer did conspire that they shall not do their work but at a certain price, or shall not take upon them to finish that which another has begun, or shall do but a certain work, at

(a) Horton v. M'Murtry, 29 L. J. Ex. 260.

(b) Turner v. Robinson, 6 C. & P. 15; Callo v. Brounceker, 4 C. & P.

513; Trotman v. Dunn, 4 Camp. 211.

(c) Smith v. Hayward, 7 A. & E. 544; Wilkinson v. Gaston, 15 L. J. C. B. 137.