Page images
PDF
EPUB

Thus in Hiscox v. Butchellor (g), and Foxall v. International Land Credit Co. (h), Byles, J., left it to the jury to say what was reasonable notice in the case of an advertising agent and a clerk.

In Creen v. Wright (C), the contract gave the defendants, who were owners of a ship, power to dismiss a master abroad without notice. The Court refused to hold that a like right existed when the master was in this country.

“ He was entitled to some, and that is, to reasonable notice."

1

(g) (1867), 15 L. T. N. S. 543. (h) (1867), 16 L. T. N. S. 637. (i) (1876), L. R. 1 C. P. D. 591. The Courts have sometimes refused to follow the analogy of notices for the expiration of tenancies, which must be given so as to terminate at the end of the current year. Thus in Ryan v. Jenkinson (1855), 25 L. J. Q. B. 11, a schoolmaster was appointed, "at the rate of £55 per annum.

His appointment was to be subject to termination by three months' notice from either party. The Court thought that the notice need not be given so as to terminate at the end of a current year. In Becston v. Collyer (1827), 4 Bing. 309, the Court refused to say whether the rule as to notice in case of tenancies was to be engrafted on contracts for the hire of servants. In Kein v. Hart (1868), 2 I. R. C. L.

138 ; 3 I. R. C. L. 388, the Court
had before it an agreement in which
the words were, “This agreement
shall stand good for the term of
six months, and six months' notice
from either side shall terminate the
agreement." The Judges thought
that the agreement was capable of
being terminated by a six months'
notice, expiring at any time after
first six months.

The same

case
may be consulted as to what words
constitute a notice. See further as
to notice, Fawcett v. Cash (1834), 5
B. & Ad. 904; Williams v. Byrne
(1837), 2 N. & P. 139 ; 7 A. & E. 177
(newspaper reporter); Brosham v.
Wagstafie (1841), 5 Jur. 845 (chemist's
assistant); Turner v. Mason (1845),
14 M. & W. 112 ; Metzner v. Bolton
(1854), Ex. 518 (commercial
traveller).

:

9

APPENDIX A.

YEARLY HIRING. Rex v. Stockbridge (1773), Bur. S. C. 759. Postilion served for a year; nothing said as to wages ; yearly hiring

Reč v. Macclesfield (1789), 3 T. R. 76. Servant hired for eleven months at 10 guineas; at the expiration of the time told by his master “You may as well stay on an end in your place ;" servant assented ; second agreement a

NOT YEARLY HIRING.
Rex v. Dedham (1769), Bur. S.C.
653. Glazier hired at the wages of
68. a week; summer and winter.

Rex v. Neuton Toney (1788), 2
T. R. 453. Ostler hired at 4s. 6d.
a week ;” weekly hiring.

Rex v. Odiham (1788), 2 T. R. 622. Service for a year at so much a week without fixing any time of service ; no yearly hiring.

Rex v. St. Peters (1763), Bur.

[ocr errors]

1

YEARLY HIRING.

Nor YEARLY HIRING." general hiring.

S. C. 513. Hiring at so much Rex v. Seaton (1784), Cald. 440. and to part on a week's notice, not Wages payable weekly ; promise a hiring for a year, though servant to stay another year.

continued six years with her Re: v. Birdbrooke (1791), 4 T. master. R. 245. Labourer agrees to serve Rex V. Pucklechurch (1804), 5 farmer “at 3s. per week the year East, 382. Servant hired himself round.”

in the first instance for eight weeks, Res v. Hampreston (1791), 5 T. and afterwards to the same master R. 205. Serve at so much a for less than a year at weekly week with liberty to part on a wages ; then entered into new month's notice.

agreement with same master at Pex v. Lyth (1793), 5 T. R. 327. weekly wages, nothing said as to A husbandman served for a year ; duration of service ; weekly hiring. strong evidence of hiring for a year. Rex v. Mitcham (1810), 12 East,

Rex v. Long Whatton (1793), 5 351. Hiring at so much a week T. R. 447. Service with the same for as long time as master and master for three years evidence of servant could agree; a weekly hiring for a year, though servant hiring at first hired only for part of a year. Rex v. Dodderhill (1811), 3 M. & See also Rec v. Hales (1794), 5 T. R. S. 243. Servant hired to serve for 668 ; Rex v. Worfield (1794), 5 T. weekly wages of 4s. and board and R. 506.

washing, except in the harvest Rer v. Pendleton (1812), 15 East, month, when wages to be 108. 6d. 419. Hiring for a year presumed Rex v. St. Mary (1815), 4 M. & from service for three years. S. 315. Hiring at so much a week

Rex v. Great Yarmouth (1816), and 2 guineas for harvest ; not 5 M. & S. 114. Hiring at weekly yearly hiring. wages, either party to be free to Rex v. Rolvenden (1815), 1 M. part at a month's notice ; held to & R. 691. Ostler hired at so much be a yearly hiring, though the case a week for the winter and so much stated that the servant let himself for the summer ; weekly hiring. by the week.

Rex v Elsack (1785), 2 Bott, 203. Berston v. Collyer (1827), 4 Bing. Maidservant hired “at 1s. 4d. a 309. Defendant entered plaintiff's week and board and lodging for service as clerk in 1793 ; was paid so long as they should want ; quarterly in 1811; during last six weekly hiring. years the salary was paid monthly. R. v. Woodhurst (1818), 1 B. &

Rex v. St. Martins (1828), 8 Ald. 325. Agreement to serve from B. & C. 674. Yearly hiring of Michaelmas to Michaelmas, and to a boots and tap-boy inferred make 70,000 bricks at a stipulated from service for three years

price. and a quarter, and the fact that Rex v. Christ's Parish (1824), 3 B. the master had retained him after & C. 459. Boy entered service of the fortnight for which he had at farmer for meat and clothes as first invited him to stay.

long as he had a mind to stop ; Rex v. St. Andrews (1828), 8 B. hiring at will. & C. 679.

Hiring at £l a week Rex v. Warminster (1826), 6 B. with a month's notice or a month's & C. 77 ; 9 D. & R. 70. Hiring at wages ; yearly hiring.

68. a week for winter and 98. a Stiff v. Cassell (1856), 2 Jur. N. week for summer, nothing being S. 348. Contract by author to said as to duration of service. write tales for a weekly publica- Rex v. Ardington (1834), 1 A. &

[ocr errors]

em

[ocr errors]

YEARLY HIRING.

Not YEARLY HIRING. tion, "extending over the period E. 260. A. hired a shepherd for a of one year,” to be paid £10 a week term less than a year ending for each number; matter to be Michaelmas, 1825 ; he served for supplied each week.

a few days after Michaelmas under Turner v. Robinson (1833), 5 B. no new agreement ; master asked & Ad. 789. Foreman of silk manu- him if he chose to go on with him ; facturers; wages to be “at the wages to be the same; A. conrate of £80 a year ;” yearly tinued in service until Lady Day, hiring.

1826 ; no yearly hiring. Fawcett v. Cash (1834), 5 B. & Ad. Bacter v. Nurse (1843), 1 C. & 904. Plaintiff entered the service

K. 10; (1844) 6 M. & G. 938. of defendant under the following Action by editor of “ Polytechnic agreement : “ Plaintiff engages to

Review for wrongful dismissal ; pay defendant £12 108. per month evidence that by general usage for the first year, and advance editors, sub-editors, reporters, £10 per annum until the salary and other persons regularly emis £180, from the 5th of March, ployed on newspapers are 1832;" contract for at least a

ployed for a year ; jury found that year.

the usage did not apply to the Down v. Pinto (1854), 9 Ex. 327. “Polytechnic Review," which was See p. 170.

a new publication ; application for Brown v. Symons (1860), 8 C. new trial refused. B. N. S. 208; 29 L. J. C. P. 251.

Holcroft v. Barber (1843), 1 C. & See p. 171.

K. 4. Action for wrongfully disDavis v. Marshall (1861), 4 L. missing an editor ; evidence that T. N. S. 216 ; 9 W. R. 520.

any person permanently employed Plaintiff, manager of a shop under

(not occasionally only), whether as an agreement by which he was to

editor, sub-editor, or reporter, to receive a salary of £30 payable supply a particular department of monthly ; hiring for a year.

a newspaper, is to be presumed to Buckingham v. The Surrey and

be hired for a year; the jury found Hants Canal Co. (1882), 46 L. T. for the defendant. N. S. 885. Plaintiff appointed Butterfield v. Marler (1851), 3 engineer to defendants at a salary

C. & K. 163. Plaintiff, commission of £500 a year ; dismissed at a

agent, acting for defendants ; proof three months' notice. A yearly that for more than a year he had hiring ; plaintiff entitled to recover rendered his accounts. salary for the unexpired portion of Blackwell v. Pennant (1852), 9

Hare, 551. Servant paid weekly wages though irregularly ; not yearly hiring

Fairman v. Oakford (1860), 5 H. & N. 635 ; 29 L. J. Ex. 459. Plaintiff, a clerk of ship broker, left defendant's service, receiving a month's wages instead of notice ; subsequently entered the defendant's service at a yearly salary of £250 ; nothing expressly said as to notice or duration of service; plaintiff paid weekly. Judge left it to the jury to say whether there was a hiring for a year, telling

the year.

or

YEARLY HIRING. Langton v. Carleton (1873), 9 L. R. Ex. 57; 43 L. J. Ex. 54 ; 29 L. T. 650.

Agreement between plaintiffs and defendant ; latter engaged at salary of £200 a year payable fortnightly ; the agreement between the parties to be for twelve months certain, after which time either party to be at liberty to terminate the agreement by giving the other a three months' notice ; and after twelve months or before any notice shall have expired, plaintiffs may do so on payment to defendant of £50.—Bramwell, B., and Pigott, B. held that it was an agreement to expire without notice at end of twelve months, and then to continue, if the parties 80 pleased, until terminated by three months' notice. Kelly, Č. B., thought the contract contemplated a continuance of service beyond the three months.

Not YEARLY HIRING. them, according to the report in the Law Journal, that, except in the case of menial servants, there was no inflexible rule that a general hiring is for a year. The jury found no contract for a year, and the Court refused to say that there was inisdirection, that the verdict was against the weight of evidence.

Robertson v. Jenner (1867), 15 L. T. N. S. 514. Hiring, at 2 guineas a week for a year is hiring by the week and not by the year.

Evans v. Roe (1872), L. R. 7 C. P. 138. Plaintiff entered service of defendants under a memorandum which, inter alia, said,“ April 13th, 1871. I hereby agreee to accept the situation as foreman, &c., on my receiving a salary of £2 per week and house to live in from the 19th of April, 1871." Weekly hiring, and no evidence of conversation at the time of signing with a view to show yearly contract intended, was admissible.

See Zurhorst v. Millinery & Dress Association, Times, Feb. 25, 1882.

CHAPTER XV.

MASTER'S DUTY TO INDEMNIFY.

A MASTER is bound to indemnify his servant for all expenses or loss incurred or sustained, in obeying his lawful orders.

No express contract of indemnity is required; the law will presume from the relation of master and servant—as in fact from any other contract of agency-an obligation to hold the latter harmless from the consequences of obedience to the lawful orders of the former (a).

The first important exception to the rule is that a promise, expressed or implied, to indemnify a servant against the consequences of violation of a statute, or a felony or misdemeanour, or a manifest civil wrong, is of no effect. Thus a promise to indemnify a printer against the consequences of publishing a libel (6), or to indemnify a police constable for suffering a prisoner to escape (c), or for an assault (d),

con

ex

(a) Story on Agency, S. 339; Wharton on Agency, s. 340 ; Dig. Lib. 26, 18. Pothier (Mandat, Chap. IV., s. I., A. I.) says of L'obligation de rembourser

le mandataire :"

.” “Pour qu'il y ait lieu à cetto obligation, il faut lo que le mandataire ait déboursé quelque chose ; 2° qu'il l'ait déboursé causa mandati ; 3° qu'il l'ait déboursé sans faute, inculpabiliter.”

(6) Shackell v. Rosier (1836), 2 Bing. N. C. 634. (" The plaintiff, at the request of the defendant, had published the libel ; that is, had committed an indictable offence. What is that but saying that, in consideration that the plaintiff and defendant had conibined to commit a

breach of the law, the defendant
promised to save the plaintiff harm-
less?" Tindal, C. J.) Colburn v.
Patmore (1834), Cr. M. & R. 173.
(Action by proprietor of a paper
against an editor for publishing a
libel, for which plaintiff was
victed and fined ; the judges indi-
cated their opinion that a proprietor
could not recover against the editor
the damages sustained by such con-
viction.)

(c) Peatherstone Huchinson, Cro. Eliz. 199.

(d) Allen v. Rescous, 2 Lev. 174 ; Battersey's Case (20 James I.), Winch 48, and Parcbrother v. Ansley (1808), i Camp. 344 ; said by Story (Agency, 339) to be overruled.

V.

« EelmineJätka »