Page images
[blocks in formation]


Van Den Eynde . Ulster Rail.
Co., 288, 298

Vanderbilt v. Richmond Turnpike
Co., 286

Veitch v. Russell, 83

Velasquez, The, 270

Venables v. Smith, 56, 299

Vose . Lancashire & Yorkshire
Rail. Co., 332, 663
Vrede, The, 153


Wadling v. Oliphant, 239, 240
Wadsworth v. Gye, 243
Wain . Warlters, 127

Waite v. North Eastern Ry. Co., 329
Waldie v. Duke of Roxburghe, 282,


Waldo v. Martin, 134

Walker t. British Guarantee Association, 210

Walsh v. Walley, 220, 638
Walter, Ex parte, 162, 166
Walters, Ex parte, 239
Waltham v. Mulgar, 293
Wannel's Case, 13
Wanstall v. Pooley, 272

Warburton v. Great Western Rail.
Co., 312, 333

v. Heyworth, 638

Ward r. Byrne, 135, 136

v. General Omnibus Co., 298 v. Macauley, 55

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


Wardleworth v. Walker, 329
Warner v. Erie Rail. Co., 324
v. Smith, 339

Warren. Wildee, 305
Waters v. Brogden, 250
Watling . Oastler, 335
Watson v. Christie, 33
Waugh v. Carver, 67, 75
v. Morris, 132

Way r. Great Eastern Rail. Co.,

Weatherston v. Hawkins, 188
Weaver v. Floyd, 368

Webb v. East, 187

v. England, 184, 198

v. Rennie, 335

Webster v. Dillon, 199

Weems v. Mathieson, 319
Weir v. Bell, 259

Wennall v. Adney, 180

Western Bank of Scotland v. Addie,
260, 290

Westlake v. Adams, 123
Westmoreland, The, 551, 560
Westwick v. Theodor, 183, 223
Whartman v. Pearson, 297

v. Great Western Rail. Co., Wheatley v. Patrick, 272

[blocks in formation]

Whincup v. Hughes, 184
White v. Bayley, 73

v. Boby, 198

v. Cuyler, 95

v. France, 661

v. Spettigue, 232
v. Wilson, 111

Whitehead v. Holdsworth, 403

Whiteley v. Armitage, 636

v. Pepper, 279

Whitely v. Adams, 186

Whitfield . Lord Le Despenser,


[blocks in formation]


Page 164. By Apportionment Act, 1870, 33 & 34 Vict. c. 35, s. 2, salaries are

[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]

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.

[ocr errors]

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. Crowford, has been overruled by Winyard v. Toogood, W. N., Dec. 23, 1882, p. 187; Times, Dec. 20, 1882; Solicitor's Journal, Dec. 23, 1882.

[ocr errors][ocr errors]

664. McGiffin 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.




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

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


« EelmineJätka »