MASTER AND SERVA.NT (ante). In the United States the common-law rules governing this relation have been modified by statutory enactment in a very slight degree only. The law of contracts almost always governs without being restrained by legislation arising from class distinctions or rank. The principles of common law apply in this country more completely than in England, where there are many special statutes on the subject. The terms master and servant are u.;ed iu niore than one sense, and may indicate a relation of service in fact, or such a relation existing only by construction of the law. As applied to domestic service and apprenticeship there is little of importance to be said. The latter relation is now not very common in this country, and the legal priuciples applicable have long since been well settled. When the words are used in a Iroader sense the relation indicated is often very like that of principal and agent, and the general laws of agency apply. The'law of this country recognizes no distinction between the hiring or liability of domestic or agricultural servants and others. In the contract there must be mutual engagements, but they need not necessarily be co-exten sive. Thus the servant may agree to serve for a year without binding the hirer to retain hint for the whole of that period. The contract of service comes under the statute of frauds, and should, therefore, be in writing if for more than one year. If the contract he " entire," that is, for the whole of a definite period, the servant cannot recover unless he serves for the whole time. The master may dismiss for refractory, or immoral conduct, and can sue his servant for damages incurred by refusal to perform his duties. On the other hand, if after contract made the master refuse to furnish work, the servant may sue for the whole amount of his wages if he present himself at the proper time in readiness to perform. Thus an opera singer may sue a manager for full contract salary, though the sing-er may never have been allowed to sing a note. The liability of the master to his servants for damages incurred from one another while in his employment can be based only on neglect by him to furnish proper tools or the willful hiring of incompetent persons. But it has been held, in Davis vs. Detroit R.R. Co., 20 Mich., 105,
that though a servant was injured by the negligence of a very incornpetent fellow-ser -vant, yet he could not recover because, being aware of the incompetence, he voluntarily took the risk. See also 3 Cushing, 270, and 20 Barber (N.Y.), 449. But if the service is of its very nature dangerous, and the servant undertakes it knowingly,he can have no remedy for injuries. More important are the distinctions as regards the liability of the master to third persons for the acts of his servant. The principle which governs is based upon the control or non-control of the latter by the former. The general rule is that the mas ter is liable for all tortuous acts done by a servant when in his service and acting within the scope of his proper employment. A general contractor, however, is not under the control of his employer; and, therefore, the latter is not liable for his acts. But in the case of corporations and particularly in railroad cases the courts of the several states have, from motives of public policy, seen fit to consider the corporation as in fact itself present in the persons of its servants. Again, it was formerly held that a master could not he liable for the willfully wrongful act of his employee, when not acting under direct authority; but in 38 Miss., 242, a railroad was held responsible for the willful and wanton act of an engineer; and the tendency of modern cases is strongly towards enlarg ing the limits of the doctrine of respondeat superior as applied to great corporations 'which assume extraordinary powers and hold human life and immenqe propertv interests in their hands. But notice of want of authmity in servants by the superior cheers of a -railroad will relieve them of liability- for the acts of such servants. In 14 Howard, 468. -it was held that it made no difference that an inferior disobeyed orders of a, superior, provided that he was acting strictly within the scope of his own employment, and the company was held liable. The relations of employer and employed in the railway system have been productive of the most important discussions and decisions as regards the law ,of master and servant which have arisen in this country. See Redfield on Railways.