MASTER AND SERVANT. The relation of master and servant exists between one who not only prescribes to the•workman the end of his work, but directs, or at any moment may direct the means also, or re tains the power of controlling the work; 4 E. & B. 570; 24 L. J. Q. B. 138; and one who is engaged, "not merely.in doing work or service for him, but who is in his service, usually upon or about the premises of his employer, and subject to his direction and control therein, and who is, generally, liable to be dismissed ;" Heygood v. State, 59 Ala. 51; for misconduct or disobedience of or ders ; Wadsworth Howland Co. v. Foster, 50 Ill. App. 513.
Where the hiring is for a definite term of service the master is entitled to the labor of the servants during the whole term, and may recover damages against any one who entices them away or harbors them know ing them to be in his service ; Scidmore v. Smith, 13 Johns. (N. Y.) 322 ; 2 E. & B. 216 ; Walker v. Cronin, 107 Mass. 555. See EN TICE.
A master may justify an assault in de fence of his servant and a servant of his master; the master because he has an in terest in his servant not to be deprived of his service; the servant because it is a part of his duty, for which he receives his wages, to stand by and defend his master ; 1 Bla. Com. 429 ; Lofft 215. Formerly it was said that a master might give moderate corporal punishment to his menial servant while un der age ; 2 Kent 261. See ASSAULT ; AP PRENTICESHIP; CORRECTION.
The master may dismiss a. servant before the expiration of the term for which he is hired, for immoral conduct, wilful disobedi ence, or habitual neglect, and the servant will not in such case be entitled to his wages; Matthews v. Park Bros. & Co., 159 Pa. 579, 28 Atl. 435; Beggs v. Fowler, 82 Mo. 599 ; Leatherberry v. Odell, 7 Fed. 642; 11 Q. B. 742 ; Railey v. Lanahan, 34 La. Ann. 426; Dieringer v. Meyer, 42 Wis. 311, 24 Am. Rep. 415 ; Newman v. Reagan, 63 Ga. 755; but if the dismissal be without reasonable cause, the servant may recover damages from his master therefor, to such an amount as will indemnify him for the loss of wages during the time necessarily spent in obtaining new employment, and for the loss of the excess of any wages contracted for above the usual rate ; 2 H. L. 607; Markham v. Markham,
110 N. C..356, 14 S. E. 963; see Peterson v. Mayer, 46 Minn. 468, 49 N. W. 245, 13 L. R. A. 72. Any adequate cause for the dismissal of an employe known to the employer at the time thereof will justify the same, whether assigned or not, or though a different cause is assigned ; Sterling Emery Wheel Co. v. Magee, 40 111. App. 340 ; or the cause may not have been known at the time of dis charge; Odeneal v. Henry, 70 Miss. 172, 12 South. 154. The statute 5 Eliz. c. 4, re quired a master, in certain cases, to satisfy two justices of the peace that he had reason able and sufficient cause for putting away his servant. It was repealed by 38 & 39 Viet. c. 86, s. 17.
Where a servant, after being discharged, sues for a breach of the contract of hiring before the termination of the period covered thereby, he can recover damages, up to, but not after, the time of the trial; Mt. Hope Cemetery Ass'n v. Weidenmann, 139 Ill. 67, 28 N. E. 834; see Darst v. Alkali Work, 81 Fed. 284 ; and such recovery will be a bar to any subsequent action upon the same con tract ; Booge v. R. R., 33 Mo. 212, 82 Am. Dec. 160.
When a servant becomes disabled from performing the duties of his contract, such contract is dissolved and the master may discharge him ; Prior v. Flagler, 13 Misc. 115, 34 N. Y. Supp. 152 ; Johnson v. Walker, 155 Mass. 253, 29 N. E. 522, 31 Am. St. Rep. 550. An express agreement in the contract of em ployment that the work must be done to the satisfaction of the master, entitles him to discharge the servant for bad work at his discretion and constitutes the master the sole judge of the sufficiency or the quality of the work; Koehler v. Buhl, 94 Mich. 496, 54 N. W. 157; Frary v. Rubber Co., 52 Minn. 264,