Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

his master; for the obligation depends on his promise; but that does not extend to unlawful acts. Chap. v. § 3.

Hence, the master's authority is no justification of a servant in doing wrong; for the servant's own promise, on which that authority is founded, would be none.

Clerks and apprentices ought to be employed only in the business which they were to learn. For, their hire is instruction; and to deprive them of the opportunities of that, for the purposes of their employer, is to rob them of their wages.

The master is responsible for acts done by his servant in the ordinary course of employment; for they are done under a general authority equivalent to a specific command. Thus a banker is responsible for money paid to his clerk, but not if paid to his footman; because it is not the business of the latter to receive money for his master. So if a ser

vant be sent by his master to a shop to buy goods on credit, whatever goods he may afterwards obtain for himself, so long as he is in the same service, the master is answerable for; because the seller cannot tell whether the goods are, or are not, required for the master.

In other cases, the law, rather than moral justice, ordains that the master be responsible for the acts of his servant, even when the servant is a free agent; as, for instance, when an innkeeper's servant robs a guest, or a farrier's man lames a horse, or a coachman injures a passenger or passer-by; the innkeeper, farrier, and coachman's master are respectively liable.

Connected with the contract for service, is the duty of giving a character to a servant; in the performance of which, most persons through mistaken views of kindness do in truth act wrong. A character, if not true to the letter, is a fraud on the party who accepts it; and the act is the more ungenerous as the person who is deceived by it is a stranger. But to misrepresent secretly a person's character to others,

138 If a servant does wrong for his master, is he justified by being commanded? Why?

139 How are clerks and apprentices to be employed? Why? 140 When is the master responsible for his servant's acts? Why? 141 Give a few examples, with their reasons.

142 To what extent does the law enact on such subjects?

143 What is our duty in the matter of giving characters ?

144 How is considered the act of injuring a servant's character?

with the view of retaining for one's own use the services of such employee, is cruel, immoral, and cowardly; cruel, because the injury is done without the power of remedy; immoral, because it destroys the motives to good conduct; and cowardly, because a similar act in the case of equals, would by the law of honor expose the party offending to the loss of character or life.

A master of a family is bound not to permit among his domestics any vices which he might restrain. This arises from our duty at all times to prevent misery, of which vice is the inevitable forerunner. This care of his household on the part of Abraham met with the approbation of God ;* and indeed no authority is so well adapted for this purpose, because none operates on the subjects of it with an influence so direct.

The language of the Christian Scriptures, touching the relative duties of masters and servants, breathes a spirit of liberality which has always been but little known in ages when servitude was slavery; and which must have resulted from the habit of viewing both parties in a common relation to their Creator, and a common interest in a future state. "Servants, be obedient to your masters, as unto Christ; not with eye-service, as men-pleasers, but doing the will of God from the heart; with good-will doing service as to the Lord, and not to men, knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free. And, ye masters, do the same thing unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your Master also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him." Nor is the policy of this view less than its liberality; for by teaching servants to consider God as their present task-master and future rewarder, a steady and cordial obedience is produced, in place of that constrained service which cannot be trusted out of sight, and is therefore well called eye-service; while the exhortation to masters to consider themselves accountable, is equally seasonable.

145 To what is the master morally bound? Why is it thought so? 146 What else confirms this opinion?

147 What are the scriptural directions to servants?

148 What directions to masters?

149 What may be thought of these directions? Why?

* Gen. xviii. 9.

† Eph. vi. 5-9.

CHAP. XII.—CONTRACTS OF LABOR,COMMISSIONS.

He who undertakes another's business engages tacitly to employ on it the same care as if it were his own; but he promises no more than this. If he has done so much, he has discharged his duty, even though it should afterwards appear that greater exertion would have benefited his employer more.

The chief difficulty of an agent is to decide whether he may or may not depart from his instructions, when the object of the commission presents to his mind a view different to that which he knew his employer had, when he, the agent, was charged to execute such commission. The latitude allowed must vary according to circumstances. For instance, an attorney, sent to complete the purchase of an estate at a certain price, finding the title defective, refuses to pay the money; and properly so. On the other hand, an officer is ordered to perform a particular duty, which he is satisfied his commander would not have ordered, had he known the real state of affairs: yet he is bound to follow implicitly his instructions.

What is trusted to an agent may be lost or damaged by accident when in his possession. If he receives no pay, he is not answerable for the loss: for he gives his labor for nothing, and cannot be expected to give security for nothing also. But if he receives any pay, the decision respecting his responsibility will rest on the apprehension of the parties respecting the terms of the engagement; and this again is regulated by custom. For instance, whether a carrier be or be not liable for the loss of goods intrusted to him, when the loss is not imputed to any fault or neglect of his, is a question of custom alone. But if the carrier stipulates that he will not be accountable for goods of a certain description, he engages, in fact, to be accountable for all others of any other description; because the limitation of one part is the 150 What does an agent promise in his contract?

151 What may limit his exertions?

152 What is the chief difficulty experienced by an agent?

153 In such cases, is the judgment of the agent always trusted to? 154 Give examples of both cases.

155 How is an agent without pay to be affected by accidental injuries to his charge?

156 How is he to be affected if he is paid for his agency? Give some examples.

non-limitation of others. taken by the owner to guard against risk exonerates the carrier, by showing that the sender was aware of the risk, and that he took it on himself.

On the other hand, any caution

Universally, unless a promise, either express or tacit, be proved against the agent, the loss must fall on the owner.

The agent may accidentally suffer in person or purse by the business he undertakes; still he can claim no compensation for such loss. For if the danger was not foreseen, neither the agent nor his employer thought of such compensation, and consequently none is due. If it was foreseen, the business was undertaken with the knowledge of the risk, the remuneration was of course regulated with reference to such risk, and a part of the remuneration is in fact a compensation for the loss incurred. Of course, the loser can

require nothing extra.

CHAP. XIII.-CONTRACTS OF LABOR,PARTNERSHIP.

On the subject of partnership, the only point of doubt is the division of profits, where one party contributes money, and the other labor.

Rule. From the value of the partnership-stock deduct the sum advanced; and the remainder is the profit. Divide that between the two partners, in proportion of the interest of the money to the wages of the labor; allowing such interest as money might fetch on the same security, and such wages as would be given for the same labor. But if there be no profit, then the moneyed partner loses his interest, and the working one his labor. If the original stock be diminished, the working partner loses only his labor, whereas the moneyed partner loses his capital and interest; but for this disadvantage, must be set off the chance of greater profit arising from the rate of interest in his favor.

It is true, the proportion, in which the profits are to be divided, is generally expressed in the contract itself. But the agreements, to be equitable in such cases, must pursue the principle here laid down.

All the partners are bound by the act of one; for that one is supposed to be the agent of the others.

157 What effect has a caution from the owner?

158 What is the general rule in agencies?

159 What claims has an agent for personal injury? Why? 160 What is the moral rule for partnership?

CHAP. XIV.-CONTRACTS OF LABOR,-OFFICES.

In many offices, such as professorships, principals of schools, and managers of corporate bodies, there is a twofold contract; one has regard to the origin of the office, the other to the electors to it.

With regard to the origin, the officer is bound to do all that is appointed by the charter, deed of gift, or will of the founder. The contract with the electors, is to do all that has been customarily done by the person in office; for such is the known expectation of the electors, and the officer elected must satisfy them, or previous to election, stipulate for their non-perfomance.

The electors can excuse the officer from the performance of these customary duties only: for as their power cannot annul the positive injunctions of the original deed, so neither can they stipulate with the candidate for the non-performance of those duties which such positive injunctions imply.

It is difficult and yet important, to know what offices may be performed by deputy. But the cases need only be stated where a deputy is not allowable.

An office may not be discharged by deputy,

1. Where a particular confidence is placed in the judg ment and conduct of the individual; as a judge, commanderin-chief, or a guardian of property or persons.

2. Where the custom hinders; as in the case of tutors. 3. Where the deputy cannot legally perform all the acts of the principal; as for instance where he lacks the legal authority.

4. Where general mischief would result to the service from such substitution of the deputy for his principal; as for example, the discouragement of military merit if superior officers in the army might employ substitutes.

161 What kind of contract is made in the case of some offices?
162 To what is the officer bound by the origin of the office?
163 To what is he bound by contract with the electors? Why?

164 How far can he be excused by the electors? Why?
165 What difficult and important question arises here?

166 What is the first case in which an office cannot be discharged by deputy?

167 Give the second, and an example. 168 State the third, with its example.

169 The fourth, and an example,

« AnteriorContinuar »