employer as to the method or means to be taken in doing the work. The general rule is that an employer is not responsible for the acts of an independent contractor. If, however, the employer dictates the method, or retains any direction or control over the contractor, he will to that extent be answerable for any injuries traceable to him. And if the work is unlawful in itself, or must necessarily cause the damage, the employer may be held liable jointly with the contractor. An independent contractor's liability to the employer for wrongs is no different from that of any stranger, except that he is bound to perform his contract. § 474. The contract between master and servant. -A general hiring without limitation is at common law a hiring by the year. From custom, or from the times of payment, the period may be held to be monthly, weekly, or daily. If the time is expressly fixed, it controls, and both master and servant are bound to the performance of the contract. If the contract is for doing what is illegal it is void; so, also, if the hiring is for an immoral purpose; and if any essential part of the consideration is illegal the whole contract is void. Contracts for personal services can not be specifically enforced, nor can they be assigned or transferred without consent of both parties. Such contracts are always subject to the implied condition that the person shall be able to perform the service, and if he is disabled without his fault he is excused from further performance. In the absence of stipulation or statute to the contrary, wages are payable at the end of each term of service. § 475. Termination of the relation.-In addition to the termination by expiration of the time of service, or the death or disablement of either party, the contract of service may be put to an end, (1) by the master's discharging the servant, or (2) by the servant's abandoning the service. § 476. Discharge by the master.-The master may discharge the servant for sufficient cause. Just what is sufficient cause must depend upon the facts in each case. Generally, however, it is sufficient cause for discharge that the servant is guilty of disobedience, immoral conduct, incompetency, habitual negligence, drunkenness, fraudulent conduct and the like. In case of discharge for cause the general rule is that the servant is entitled to payment for what he has done up to the time of discharge, but is not entitled to any damages for the unexpired term. If the discharge be without good cause, the servant is entitled not only to payment for the work actually done, but to damages for the loss of his wages during the unexpired term. He is bound, however, to seek other employment. The measure of damages therefore is the unpaid balance of wages for the entire period, less what he might have earned elsewhere. § 477. Abandonment by the servant.-The servant is justified in abandoning the service, if he suffers ill usage at the hands of the master, or if the master refuses to allow him to work. These faults of the master are equivalent to a discharge, and the liability is measured accordingly. Sickness or inevitable accident disabling the servant will justify an abandonment by the servant, but will entitle him to payment only for what he has actually done. For an unjustifiable abandonment of service by the servant during a term of service, it was formerly the rule that as the price was entire and to be paid for the whole service, there could be no recovery for a part. The rule now is that the servant may recover a proportionate part of the wages, less whatever damages the abandonment caused to the master. § 478. Wrongs independent of contract.-We e pass now to the consideration of the tortious wrongs that involve the relation of master and servant. Such wrongs may create liability in the following ways, which will be considered in order: 1. Liability of third persons to the master. 5. Master's liability to servant for injuries (a) by master, (b) by persons for whom the master is answerable. 6. Servant's liability to master for injuries (a) to the master, (b) to others. § 479. Liability of third persons to the master.A master has an action against one who wrongfully entices away his servant or prevents the performance of the servant's duty to the master; and this even. though the relation of master and servant be determinable at will. One who harbors another's servant, intending thereby to wrongfully deprive the master of the service of the servant, may be liable. Where the wrong is one causing direct loss to the servant. and consequential loss to the master, as in the case of personal injury to the servant, each may recover for his own damages. § 480. Liability of third persons to the servant. -A servant being the inferior has no such interest in the master as will sustain an action by the servant for consequential damages from an injury to the master. The servant has a right of action against any one who by wrongful acts procures his discharge provided he can show damages. § 481. Master's liability for injury to others.— The question here is, for what acts and omissions of the servant is the master liable to other persons? That the master is liable at all is upon the maxim, "He who acts through another acts himself." The wrongs done may have been either intended or unintended by master or servant, and the servant may have acted in violation of or obedience to the master's orders. The persons injured may be strangers, to whom no special duty was owing, or persons to whom the master was under special obligation, such as passengers or guests at inns. Upon the nature of the wrong and the kind of duty owing depends the liability of the master. § 482. Intentional and unintentional injuries.The general rule is that where the servant's acts are within the real or apparent scope of his employment, the master is responsible; otherwise not. Hence for willful and malicious acts of the servant the master is not generally liable, for such acts can not be supposed to be authorized. The rule for liability becomes more stringent, however, if the master is under some special duty to the injured person, as in case of a passenger, and has delegated the performance of that duty to the servant. In such case the master is responsible for all injuries done by the servant, during the time of the service; hence the master may be liable even for malicious acts done in express violation of orders. § 483. Servant's liability for injuries to others.For any negligence or unlawful act of a servant he is liable to the person injured whether the master is liable or not, and no matter what is the relation of the injured person to the master. There are cases in which the servant and master are both held liable, but in which, as between themselves, the master is liable over to the servant for any loss suffered by the servant. In such cases the servant must have acted in good faith and in obedience to the master's orders. § 484. Master's liability to the servant.-First, as to injuries by the master himself. While it is a privilege of the master to give a "character" for the servant, the servant suffers no legal damage if the certificate is refused, even though the refusal be arbitrary and unjust. For any injury resulting to a servant from the direct personal act of the master, the master is liable to the servant the same as though no such relation existed. For any failure of the master to perform the duty he owes to his servant, he is liable to the servant if injury results therefrom. § 485. Duties of master to servant.-The master owes the duty to his servant to exercise ordinary care in the following respects: In providing and maintaining a safe place to work and safe appliances to work with, in taking due precautions to prevent accidents, in guarding the servant against dangers unknown to him, in refraining from exposing the |