may be liable even for malicious acts done in express violation of orders.

§ 546. 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.

§ 547. 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.

§ 548. 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 servant to unnecessary or unknown dangers, in employing as his fellow servants only competent persons, and in employing these in suf

ficient number. These are the principal duties, though others might be named. If the master exercise ordinary care in discharging his duties, he is not liable, though the servant be injured.

§ 549. Risks assumed by servant.-The servant assumes all risks that he ought to know are incident to the discharge of his duties, all risks from negligence and wrongs of his fellow servants, and he is bound to use care himself. To some extent the servant will be excused for incurring a danger under order of the master, but not if the danger be glaring, nor if it is fully known to the servant and voluntarily assumed. As a general rule, where the opportunities of the servant for discovering danger are equal to the master's, the master is not liable.

§ 550. Fellow servants.-If the master has exercised due care in selecting and retaining servants, he has done his duty. If, nevertheless, injury results to one servant by the wrongful act or omission of another servant, the master is not liable. It is essential, however, that the servants shall have been within the same general employment, for if two servants are engaged in occupations wholly independent of each other, they are not fellow servants. And it is to be further noted that the fellowservant rule applies only to the servants personally, so that if the wife or child of a servant be injured by another servant, the master is held liable for both the direct and consequential injury.

§ 551. Vice principal.-If, however, the person causing injury to the servant be discharging a duty which was owing from the master himself to the servant, he is regarded to that extent as the master. The name usually given is vice principal. For any failure to discharge

the duties he owes to his servant the master is liable, whether the act or omission which causes the injury be his own or his vice principal's. A person may at the same time be a vice principal and fellow servant; the character of the act done determines in what capacity he acts.

§ 552. Servant's liability to master.-For any wrongful act, neglect or incompetency of a servant, which causes injury to the master's person or property, the servant is liable to the master, provided the master is not also in fault. If a servant exceeds the authority conferred upon him by the master, and so involves the master in loss, the servant is liable. And a servant is liable to the master for any damages which the master has been compelled to pay to a third person on account of the wrongful act or default of the servant, provided the master is himself free from fault.

§ 553. The law of persons and domestic relations. -The law of domestic relations deals with the relationships of husband and wife, parent and child, and guardian and ward, and the various duties and rights flowing therefrom. The family is said to be the unit of society upon which all else depends. It becomes necessary therefore for such relationships and their consequent rights and duties to be carefully and definitely regulated by the state in the common interests of society, and such is the function of this division of the law.

The law of persons has to do with the alteration of certain general rules of law when applied to certain classes of persons, as infants, married women, etc. For obvious reasons these questions can be conveniently dealt

with in connection with domestic relations which give rise to most of the classes of persons affected by this branch of the law. So much of this branch of the law as is concerned with the capacity of the infant to make contracts has been dealt with under the law of that subject.

§ 554. Right to marry.-A refusal to perform a promise of marriage is only a breach of contract, the remedy for which is in general the same as for breach of any other contract. It sometimes happens that a fraud becomes mingled in the making or breaking of the promise, and in such case the whole becomes a tort. For example, if a man of negro blood, pretending to be white, should induce a white woman to enter into an engagement for marriage with him, such marriage being illegal, there would be a wrong whether the marriage ceremony were performed or not.

If third persons wrongfully interfere with mutual promises of marriage and break the engagement an action lies in favor of the one injured. But, generally, such a wrong will be one that is actionable upon some other ground.

§ 555. Fraud between parties engaged to be married. This relation establishes a confidence which, though not of so high a degree as marriage, may be the basis for accomplishing a wrong. The confidence is such as will quiet any apprehension of fraudulent practices.

If a man who is incapacitated to marry, as by already having a wife, should engage himself to marry a woman, and should induce her to consummate a supposed marriage, he would be liable in damages to her. It would not be necessary to show any active misstatement or deception. The relation of confidence precludes the neces