An apprentice is bound to obey his master in all his lawful commands, take care of his property, and promote his interest, endeavor to learn his trade or business, and perform all the covenants in his indenture not con trary to law. He must not leave his mas ter's service during the terms of his appren ticeship ; James v. Le Roy, 6 Johns. (N. Y.) 274 ; Coffin v. Bassett, 2 Pick. (Mass.) 357. The apprentice is entitled to payment for extraordinary services when promised by the master ; Ex parte Steiner, 1 Penn. L. Jour. Rep. 368; see Bailey v. King, 1 Whart. (Pa.) 113, 29 Am. Dec. 42; and even when no ex press promise has been made, under peculiar circumstances ; Mason v. The Blaireau,' 2 Cra. (U. S.) 240, 270, 2 L. Ed. 266 ; 3 C. Rob. Adm. 237; but see Bailey v. King, 1 Whart. (Pa.) 113, 29 Am. Dec. 42. Upon the death of the master, the apprenticeship, being a personal relation, is dissolved ; Strange 284 ; Eastman v. Chapman, 1 Day (Conn.) 30.
To be binding on the apprentice, the con tract must be made as prescribed by statute ; Harper v. Gilbert, 5 Cush. (Mass.) 417 ; but if not so made, it can only be avoided by the apprentice himself; Fowler v. Hollenbeck, 9 Barb. (N. Y.) 309 ; In re McDowle, 8 Johns. (N. Y.) 328; Austin v. McCluney, 5 Strobh. M. C.) 104 ; and if the apprentice do elect to avoid it, he will not be allowed to recover wages for his services, the relation being sufficient to rebut any promise to pay which might otherwise be implied ; Maltby v. Har wood, 12 Barb. (N. Y.) 473 ; Williams v. Flitch, 2 id. 208 ; but see Himes v. Howes, 13 Mete. (Mass.) 80. The master will be hound by his covenants, though additional to those required by statute ; Davis v. Brat ton, 10 Humphr. (Tenn.) 179.
Where an apprentice is employed by a third person without the knowledge or con sent of the master, the master is entitled to his earnings, whether the person who employ ed him did or did not know that he was an apprentice; James v. Le Roy, 6 Johns. (N.
Y.) 274 ; Bokves v. Tibbets, 7 Greenl. (Me.) 457; but in an action for harboring or en ticing away an apprentice, a knowledge of the apprenticeship by the defendant is a prerequisite to recovery ; Ferguson v. Tuck er, 2 Harr. & G. (Md.) 182 ; Stuart v. Simp son, 1 Wend. (N. Y.) 376 ; McKay v. Bryson, 27 N. C. 216. A master is not entitled to the extraordinary earnings which do not inter fere with his services ; an apprentice is therefore entitled to salvage, in opposition to his master's claim ; Mason v. The Blai reau, 2 Cra. (U. S.) 270, 2 L. Ed. 266.
The master has a right of action against any one injuring his apprentice causing a loss of his service ; Ames v. Ry. Co., 117 Mass. 541, 19 Am. 'Rep. 426; 11 Ad. & El. 301.
Apprenticeship is a relation which cannot be assigned at common law ; Com. v. Bark er, 5 Binn. (Pa.) 423 ; Dougl. 70 ; Tucker v. Magee, 18 Ala. 99 ; 1 Ld. Raym. 683 ; though, if under such an assignment the apprentice continue with his new master, with the con sent of all the parties and his own, it will be construed as a continuation of the old apprenticeship ; Dougl. 70 ; Town of Guild erland v. Town of Knox, 5 Cow. (N. Y.) 363 ; Shoppard's Adm'r v. Kelly, 2 Bail. (S. C.) 93. But in some states the assignment of in dentures of apprenticeship is authorized by statute; Cora. v. Vanlear, 1 S. & R. (Pa.) 249 ; Com. v. Jones, 3 S. & R. (Pa.) 161; Phelps v. Culver, 6 Vt. 430. See, generally, 2 Kent 261; Bacon, Abr. Master and Serv ant; 1 Saund. 313. The law of France is very similar to out own ; Pardessus, Drott Comm. nn. 518, 522.
See BINDMG Our.