Page images



Turner v. Letts, 204

Walsh v. Walley, 220, 638 v. Mason, 169, 172, 205, 206, Walter, Ex parte, 162, 166 207, 208

Walters, Ex parte, 239 v. Robinson, 167, 168, 174, Waltham v. Mulyar, 293 211, 220

Wannel's Case, 13
Turner's Case, 20

Wanstall v. Pooley, 272
Warburton v. Great Western Rail.

Co., 312, 333

r. Heyworth, 638

Ward r. Byrne, 135, 136 Udell v. Atherton, 271

r. General Oinnibus Co., 298 Underhill c. Longridge, 413

v. Macauley, 55 Unwin c. Clarke, 20

Warden, &c., of Weavers 1. Brown,

Wardleworth v. Walker, 329

Warner v. Erie Rail. Co., 324

v. Smith, 339 Van Den Eynde 1. Ulster Rail. Warren 2. Wildee, 305 Co., 288, 298

Waters 1. Brogden, 250 Vanderbilt v. Richmond Turnpike Watling r. Oastler, 335 Co., 286

Watson v. Christie, 33 Veitch r. Russell, 83

Waugh v. Carver, 67, 73 Velasquez, The, 270

2. Morris, 132 Venables o. Smith, 56, 299

Way r. Great Eastern Rail. Co., Voser. Lancashire & Yorkshire 278 Rail. Co., 332, 663

Weatherston v. Hawkins, 188
Vrele, The, 153

Weaver v. Floyd, 368
Webb v. East, 187

t. England, 184, 198

9. Rennie, 335

Webster v. Dillon, 199 Walling v. Oliphant, 239, 240 Weems r. Mathieson, 319 Wadsworth v. Gye, 243

Weir v. Bell, 259 Wain v. Warlters, 127

Wennall v. Adney, 180 Waitev. North Eastern Ry. Co., 329 Western Bank of Scotland v. Adlie, Waldie v. Duke of Roxburghe, 282, 260, 290 299

Westlake v.

Adams, 123 Waldo v. Martin, 134

Westmoreland, The, 551, 560 Walker r. British Guarantee Asso- Westwick v. Theodor, 183, 223 ciation, 210

Whartman v. Pearson, 297 r. Great Western Rail. Co., Wheatley 1. Patrick, 272 251

Whincup v. Hughes, 184 0. Hull, 243

White v. Bayley, 73 o. Nicholson, 90

r. Boby, 198
v. South Eastern Rail. Co., 1'. Cuyler, 95

7. France, 661
1. South Western Rail. Co., v. Spettigue, 232
258, 287

v. Wilson, 111
Waller v. South Eastern Rail. Co., Whitehead v. Holdswortlı, 103

Whiteley v. Armitage, 636 Walley v. Holt, 659

v. Pepper, 279 Wallis v. Day, 31

Whitely v. Adams, 186 Walsby v. Anley, 599, 600

Whitfield v. Loril Le Despenser, Walsh v. Southworth, 243




Whitfield v. South Eastern Rail.

Co., 260, 261 Whittaker r. Balınforth, 664 Whittle v. Frankland, 127, 141 Whymper e. Harnbey, 520 Wicks, Ex parte, 163 Wigsett 1. Fox, 48, 308, 312, 313,

Wigmore v. Jay, 303, 320, 331
Wilkin v. Reidl, 190
Wilkins v. Wells, 112
Wilkinson v. Frasier, 75
Willets v. Green, 219
Willett v. Boole, 41, 636
Willetts v. Buffalo Rail. ('0., 329
William v. Jones, 287, 297
Williams v. Byine, 170, 172

v. Chambers, 239
v. Clough, 320, 335

v. Wheeler, 107 Williamson v. Barton, 249

v. Taylor, 139 Willis, Doe dem. v. Birchmore, 63

v. Childe, 199

1. Thorp, 384, 638 Wilmott v. Smith, 252 Wilson v. Barker, 289

v. Cookson, 371
v. Glasgow Tramway Co.,

148, 632
1. Merry, 272, 304, 316,321,

333, 663
1. Peto, 256, 272
v. Simson, 150, 339
v. Tummon, 289

v. Zulueta, 121
Winne v. Bampton, 113
Winsmore v. Greenbank,
Winstone v. Linn, 32, 222
Winton v. Wilkes, 90
Winyard v. Toogood, xxxiv
Wise v. Wilson, 212, 222, 223
Wolfe v. Matthews, 604

v. Mersereau, 300

Wolton v. Gavin, 339 Wolverhampton & W. Rail. Co.

London & North Western Rail. Co., 197 Wood v. Bowton, 600

v. Fenwick, 89

v. Finnis, 291 Woodin v. Burford, 230 Woodley v. Metropolitan District

Rail. Co., 205, 326, 660 Woodlness v. Gartness Mineral Co.,

313 Woolley v. Idle, 14 Worthington r. Sudlow, 141 Wray v. West, 90 Wright v. London General Omni

bus Co., 657 v.London & North Western

Rail. Co., 315, 333 v. Roxburgh, 256

1. Wilcox, 300 Wyllie 1. Caledonian Rail. Co.,

315 Wynne r. Forrester, 427

[blocks in formation]


[merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors]


Page 161. By Apportionment Act, 1870, 33 & 34 Vict. c. 35, s. 2, salaries are

made apportionable. 183. To authorities in note (d) add Eaton v. Western. 184. Eaton v. Western is reported in L. R., 9 Q. B. D. p. 636. Speaking of

Royce v. Charlton, Jessel, M.R., says: “I think that case was not rightly decided, and we decide the present case on the first point with the understanding that in effect it overrules Royce v. Charlton." Sir James Hannen observed : “ There is a broad distinction between this case and that of an apprentice taken into the house. In the latter case, I am inclined to think that the master would be entitled to take the apprentice with him if he removed to another place, and that it would be beyond the power of the apprentice to refuse to go." The case also decides that there was no breach of the covenant to serve the firm, inasmuch as the firm was split up into two firms, one carrying on the manufacturing part of the business at Derby, and the other the repairing and agency part of the business in London. "The apprentice looked to the advantage of being educated in a firm carrying on the business in its entirety, and he is entitled to see the

business of buying and selling as well as the mere manufacturing.' 193. See Breen v. Cooper (1869), 3 Ir. C. L. 62, as to special damage for

dismissal. 198. See May v. Thomson, L. R. 20 Ch. D. 705; 47 L. T., N. S. 295 as to

specific performance of contract for sale of medical practice. 223. In note (d) for “ is not," read “is not often.” 227. Coventry v. Windal (1615), Brown. 67. A man cannot compel an

apprentice (to a surgeon) to go beyond seas except he go with him, “but clearly he might send his apprentice to Chester, or any other

part of England." 231. See Gunter v. Astor (1819), 4 Moore 12, as to damages for enticing

away servant. 482. As to the meaning of "employed," see Beadon v. Parrot (1871), L. R. 6

Q. B. 718, where it was held that the respondent had committed the offence of employing a child within sections 6 & 7 of 30 & 31 Vict. c. 146, though the respondent had no interest in the proceeds of the sale of the child's work, and though the materials were supplied by the child's mother.


Page 545. Saunders v. Crouford, has been overruled by Winyard v. Toogood,

W. N., Dec. 23, 1882, p. 187 ; Times, Dec. 20, 1882; Solicitor's

Journal, Dec. 23, 1882. 664. McGifin v. Palmer's Shipbuilding Co. is reported in 47 L. T. N. S.

346, where Field, J., says the “defect” must be something in the

permanent condition" of the way.
666. Bunker v. Midland Rail. Co., Law Times, Dec. 16, 1882 ; Solicitors'

Journal, Dec. 16, 1882 (plaintiff, a van guard, ordered by foreman to
drive a van to B, market, and injured in so doing; plaintiff could not
recover damages, inasmuch as the order was not, by the defendants'

rules, one to which he was bound to conform).
670. Munday v. Thames Iron Works Co. is reported in 47 L. T., N. S.

351. “The liability of employers is considerably increased, and if the
Legislature had intended that workmen should have a double remedy,
I think we should have found something in the Act to indicate it.”
- Manisty, J.

[ocr errors]




The relation of Master and Servant is created by contract. Their duties to, and rights against, each other arise out of contracts, express or implied. The only exceptions are duties and rights created by statute (a).

This is a statement of the law of Master and Servant as it is and as it has long been ; and abundance of authority in support of these propositions will be found in this book, But labourers and workmen were not always free to make contracts with their masters. Services were not performed and exacted in virtue of any agreement. Traces of serfage are said to be still found in the law of Master and Servant. It

may be well to preface the description of the law as it is with a short history of its growth.

Serfage or villenage is an early English institution ; even slavery once existed in this country. The ceorl of early times—who corresponded to the liten, leten, lazzen, aldien, aldionen of old German society-was not exactly a

(a) See Austin's Jurisprudence, vol. i., p. 396, and vol. ii., p. 970, as

to certain peculiarities of the Law of h

Master and Servant. Out of the relation grow not only rights in personam, but rights in rem.


« EelmineJätka »