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 (i), 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."

66

at

His

(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, the rate of £55 per annum. 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 Beeston 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); Broxham v.
Wagstaffe (1841), 5 Jur. 845 (chemist's
assistant); Turner v. Mason (1845),
14 M. & W. 112; Metzner v. Bolton
(1854), 9 Ex. 518 (commercial
traveller).

APPENDIX A.

[merged small][ocr errors]

NOT YEARLY HIRING. Rex v. Dedham (1769), Bur. S. C. 653. Glazier hired at the wages of 6s. a week; summer and winter. Rex v. Newton 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.

YEARLY HIRING.

general hiring.

Rex v. Seaton (1784), Cald. 440. Wages payable weekly; promise to stay another year.

Rex v. Birdbrooke (1791), 4 T. R. 245. Labourer agrees to serve farmer "at 3s. per week the year round."

Rex v. Hampreston (1791), 5 T. R. 205. Serve at so much a week with liberty to part on a month's notice.

Rex v. Lyth (1793), 5 T. R. 327. A husbandman served for a year; strong evidence of hiring for a year.

Rex v. Long Whatton (1793), 5 T. R. 447. Service with the same master for three years evidence of hiring for a year, though servant at first hired only for part of a year. See also Rex v. Hales (1794), 5 T. R. 668; Rex v. Worfield (1794), 5 T. R. 506.

Rex v. Pendleton (1812), 15 East, 449. Hiring for a year presumed from service for three years.

Rex v. Great Yarmouth (1816), 5 M. & S. 114. Hiring at weekly wages, either party to be free to part at a month's notice; held to be a yearly hiring, though the case stated that the servant let himself by the week.

Beston v. Collyer (1827), 4 Bing. 309. Defendant entered plaintiff's service as clerk in 1793; was paid quarterly in 1811; during last six years the salary was paid monthly.

Rex v. St. Martins (1828), 8 B. & C. 674. Yearly hiring of a boots and tap-boy inferred from service for three years and a quarter, and the fact that the master had retained him after the fortnight for which he had at first invited him to stay.

Rex v. St. Andrews (1828), 8 B. &C. 679. Hiring at £1 a week with a month's notice or a month's wages; yearly hiring.

Stiff v. Cassell (1856), 2 Jur. N. S. 348. Contract by author to write tales for a weekly publica

NOT YEARLY HIRING. S. C. 513. Hiring at so much and to part on a week's notice, not a hiring for a year, though servant continued six years with her

master.

Rex v. Pucklechurch (1804), 5 East, 382. Servant hired himself in the first instance for eight weeks, and afterwards to the same master for less than a year at weekly wages; then entered into new agreement with same master at weekly wages, nothing said as to duration of service; weekly hiring.

Rex v. Mitcham (1810), 12 East, 351. Hiring at so much a week for as long time as master and servant could agree; a weekly hiring.

Rex v. Dodderhill (1814), 3 M. & S. 243. Servant hired to serve for weekly wages of 4s. and board and washing, except in the harvest month, when wages to be 10s. 6d.

Rex v. St. Mary (1815), 4 M. & S. 315. Hiring at so much a week and 2 guineas for harvest; not yearly hiring.

Rex v. Rolvenden (1815), 1 M. & R. 691. Ostler hired at so much a week for the winter and so much for the summer; weekly hiring.

Rex v Elsack (1785), 2 Bott, 203. Maidservant hired "at 1s. 4d. a week and board and lodging for so long as they should want;" weekly hiring.

R. v. Woodhurst (1818), 1 B. & Ald. 325. Agreement to serve from Michaelmas to Michaelmas, and to make 70,000 bricks at a stipulated price.

Rex v. Christ's Parish (1824), 3 B. & C. 459. Boy entered service of farmer for meat and clothes as long as he had a mind to stop; hiring at will.

Rex v. Warminster (1826), 6 B. & C. 77; 9 D. & R. 70. Hiring at 6s. a week for winter and 9s. a week for summer, nothing being said as to duration of service.

Rex v. Ardington (1834), 1 A. &

YEARLY HIRING.

tion, "extending over the period of one year," to be paid £10 a week for each number; matter to be supplied each week.

Turner v. Robinson (1833), 5 B. & Ad. 789. Foreman of silk manufacturers; wages to be "at the rate of £80 a year;" yearly hiring.

Fawcett v. Cash (1834), 5 B. & Ad. 904. Plaintiff entered the service of defendant under the following agreement: "Plaintiff engages to pay defendant £12 10s. per month for the first year, and advance £10 per annum until the salary is £180, from the 5th of March, 1832;" contract for at least a year.

Down v. Pinto (1854), 9 Ex. 327. See p. 170.

Brown v. Symons (1860), 8 C. B. N. S. 208; 29 L. J. C. P. 251. See p. 171.

Davis v. Marshall (1861), 4 L. T. N. S. 216; 9 W. R. 520. Plaintiff, manager of a shop under an agreement by which he was to receive a salary of £30 payable monthly; hiring for a year.

Buckingham v. The Surrey and Hants Canal Co. (1882), 46 L. T. N. S. 885. Plaintiff appointed engineer to defendants at a salary of £500 a year; dismissed at a three months' notice. A yearly hiring; plaintiff entitled to recover salary for the unexpired portion of

the year.

NOT YEARLY HIRING. E. 260. A. hired a shepherd for a term less than a year ending Michaelmas, 1825; he served for a few days after Michaelmas under no new agreement; master asked him if he chose to go on with him ; wages to be the same; A. continued in service until Lady Day, 1826; no yearly hiring.

Baxter v. Nurse (1843), 1 C. & K. 10; (1844) 6 M. & G. 938. Action by editor of "Polytechnic Review" for wrongful dismissal ; evidence that by general usage editors, sub-editors, reporters, and other persons regularly employed on newspapers are employed for a year; jury found that the usage did not apply to the "Polytechnic Review," which was a new publication; application for new trial refused.

Holcroft v. Barber (1843), 1 C. & K. 4. Action for wrongfully dismissing an editor; evidence that any person permanently employed (not occasionally only), whether as editor, sub-editor, or reporter, to supply a particular department of a newspaper, is to be presumed to be hired for a year; the jury found for the defendant.

Butterfield v. Marler (1851), 3 C. & K. 163. Plaintiff, commission agent, acting for defendants; proof that for more than a year he had rendered his accounts.

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

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 so 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 misdirection, or 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 (b), or to indemnify a police constable for suffering a prisoner to escape (c), or for an assault (d),

(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 cette obligation, il faut 1° que le mandataire ait déboursé quelque chose; 2° qu'il l'ait déboursé ex causa mandati; 3° qu'il l'ait déboursé sans faute, inculpabiliter."

(b) 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 combined to commit a

breach of the law, the defendant promised to save the plaintiff harmless?" 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 convicted and fined; the judges indicated their opinion that a proprietor could not recover against the editor the damages sustained by such conviction.)

(c) Featherstone v. Hutchinson, Cro. Eliz. 199.

(d) Allen v. Rescous, 2 Lev. 174; Battersey's Case (20 James I.), Winch 48, and Farebrother v. Ansley (1808), 1 Camp. 344; said by Story (Agency, 339) to be overruled.

« EelmineJätka »