Responsibility of employé for 1989. An employé who is expressly authorized to employ a substitute is liable to his principal only for substitute. want of ordinary care in his selection. The substitute Responsi bility for is directly responsible to the principal. 1990. NOTE.-Story on Agency, 217a. An agent employed by a Trustee is accountable to him, and not to the cestui que trust (Myles vs. Fitzpatrick, 6 Madd. R., p. 360); so a sub-agent by an agent, ordinarily (Cartwright vs. Hadley, 1 Ves., Jr., p. 292; Pinto vs. Santos, 5 Taunt. R., p. 447, and others cited in note to Sec. 217a, supra); but when by usage of trade, or otherwise, a sub-agent is employed with the express or implied consent of the principal, then the original agent will not be responsible, but the sub-agent is for his own misconduct.-Sec. 217a, supra, and Note 4. Other authority to appoint substitutes.-Story on Agency, Sec. 201. An employé who is guilty of a culpable negligence. degree of negligence is liable to his employer for the damage thereby caused to the latter; and the employer is liable to him, if the service is not gratuitous, for the value of such services only as are properly rendered. NOTE.-Story on Agency, Chap. 8, Secs. 217c to 223, and notes on cases cited. Surviving employé. 1991. Where service is to be rendered by two or more persons jointly, and one of them dies, the survivor must act alone, if the service to be rendered is such as he can rightly perform without the aid of the deceased person, but not otherwise. NOTE.-Story on Bailm., Sec. 202, where the question is fully discussed and the text sustained, by implication at least, in pertinently asking the question: "Suppose goods are sent to a partnership at Boston, to be by them sent to New Orleans, and they gratuitously undertake to forward them, and then one of the partners dies, is the mandate at an end, it being an act in its own nature requiring no peculiar personal confidence or skill?" which question the text fully answers. Mandatary is of course here used as employé, as a convertible term. 1992. The obligations peculiar to confidential em- Confiployments are defined in the Title on Trusts. NOTE.-See Title VIII of this Part, "Trust," Secs. 2215-2289, inclusive. dential employment. ARTICLE IV. TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT. SECTION 1996. Termination by death, etc., of employer. 1997. Employment, how terminated. 1998. Continuance of service in certain cases. 1999. Termination at will. 2000. Termination by employer for fault. 2001. Termination by employé for fault. 2002. Compensation of employé dismissed for cause. tion by 1996. Every employment in which the power of Terminathe employé is not coupled with an interest in its sub ject is terminated by notice to him of: 1. The death of the employer; or, 2. His legal incapacity to contract. NOTE. This section alters the common law by con- 1997. Every employment is terminated: NOTE.-Story Agency, Sec. 495, Note 3; 2 Kent's death, etc., of employer. Employment, how terminated Continuance of service in certain cases. Termination at will. Termination by employer for fault. dant, which vests his estate and all the rights connected with it in his creditors. To bind third parties, they must be notified of the dissolution; or it must be made notorious."-Id; Story Agency, Secs. 462, 463, et seq. See, also, Sec. 2355 and note, post. 1998. An employé, unless the term of his service has expired, or unless he has a right to discontinue it at any time without notice, must continue his service. after notice of the death or incapacity of his employer, so far as is necessary to protect from serious injury the interests of the employer's successor in interest, until a reasonable time after notice of the facts has been communicated to such successor. The successor must compensate the employé for such service according to the terms of the contract of employment. NOTE.-Story Agency, Secs. 495–497. 1999. An employment having no specified term may be terminated at the will of either party, on notice to the other, except where otherwise provided by this Title. NOTE.-Story Ag., Secs. 462, 476, 477; Hathaway vs. Bennett, 10 N. Y., p. 108; Ward vs. Ruckman, 34 Barb., p. 419; see Beeston vs. Collyer, 4 Bing., p. 309. 2000. An employment, even for a specified term, may be terminated at any time by the employer, in case of any willful breach of duty by the employé in the course of his employment, or in case of his habitual neglect of his duty or continued incapacity to per form it. NOTE.-"Terminated by willful breach of duty by the employer."-McDonald vs. Lord, 26 How. Pr., p. 404; Lilly vs. Elwin, 11 Q. B., p. 742; Ridgway vs. Hungerford Market Co., 3 Ad. & El., p. 171; Turner vs. Mason, 14 M. & W., p. 112. "Or by habitual neglect of duty."-See Fillieul vs. Armstrong, 7 Ad. & El., p. 557; Callo vs. Brouncker, 4 Carr & P., p. 518. A dismissal may be justified on these grounds, whether the employer knew of their existence or not.-Spotswood vs. Barrow, 5 Exch., p. 110. "Or continued incapacity to perform it."-Harmer vs. Cornelius, 5 C. B. (N. S.), p. 236; see Cuckson vs. Stones, 1 El. & El., tion by for fault. 2001. An employment, even for a specified term, Terminamay be terminated by the employé at any time, in employe case of any willful or permanent breach of the obligations of his employer to him as an employé. 66 NOTE. A female servant was held justified in quitting service on account of indecent assaults by her master's father, although her master had no part in them, his failure to protect her being held sufficient cause for leaving.-Patterson vs. Gage, 23 Verm., p. 558. A servant who, not being in fault, was required to promise to do better," as a condition of his remaining, was held to have rightfully refused to stay upon those terms.-Pritchard vs. Martin, 27 Miss., p. 305. A seaman is justified in quitting the ship if it is unseaworthy.-Savary vs. Clements, 8 Gray, p. 155; Bucker vs. Klerkgeter, 1 Abbott Adm., p. 402; Bray vs. The Atlanta, Bee Adm., p. 48. Or if no provisions are furnished him.-The Castalia, 1 Hagg. Adm., p. 59; Dixon vs. The Cyrus, 2 Pet. Adm., p. 407. Or if he is cruelly treated.-Ward vs. Ames, 9 Johns., p. 138; Relf vs. The Maria, 1 Pet. Adm., p. 193; The Minerva, 1 Hagg. Adm., p. 368; Steele vs. Thatcher, Ware, p. 94. Or even threatened with cruelty.-Edward vs. Trevellick, 4 El. & Bl., p. 59. The principle upon which these decisions are founded is evidently that stated in the text. tion of employé 2002. An employé, dismissed by his employer for Compensagood cause is not entitled to any compensation for services rendered since the last day upon which a payment became due to him under the contract. NOTE. Thus a clerk, whose salary payable quarterly, is not entitled to any salary for the fraction of a quarter in the course of which he is dismissed for cause.-Ridgway vs. Hungerford Market Co., 3 Ad. & El., p. 171; Turner vs. Robinson, 5 B. & Ad., p. 789; 6 Car. & P., p. 15; Atkin vs. Acton, 4 Car. & P., p. 208. But he ought to recover the preceding quarter's salary, if not paid. dismissed for cause. Compensation of employé leaving for cause. 2003. An employé who quits the service of his employer for good cause is entitled to such proportion of the compensation which would become due in case of full performance as the services which he has already rendered bear to the services which he was to render as full performance. NOTE.-Patterson vs. Gage, 23 Verm., p. 558; Pritchard vs. Martin, 28 Miss., p. 305. CHAPTER II. PARTICULAR EMPLOYMENTS. ARTICLE I. MASTER AND SERVANT. II. AGENTS. III. FACTORS. IV. SHIPMASTERS. V. MATES AND SEAMEN. VI. SHIPS' MANAGERS. ARTICLE I. Servant, what. MASTER AND SERVANT. SECTION 2009. Servant, what. 2010. Term of hiring. 2011. Same. 2012. Renewal of hiring. 2013. Time of service. 2014. Servant to pay over without demand. 2009. A servant is one who is employed to render personal service to his employer, otherwise than in the pursuit of an independent calling, and who in such service remains entirely under the control and direction of the latter, who is called his master. NOTE.-In personal relations-" domestics "—those who receive wages and who are lodged and fed in the house of another and employed in his service. Such servants are not particularly recognized by law; they are menial servants.-1 Black. Comm., p. 324; Wood |