River Falls journal. [volume] (River Falls, Pierce County, Wis.) 1872-2019, 1913-11-27
POPULAR TALKS ON LAW
The Servants Duty
BY Walter K. Towers, a. g., J. D., of the
Michigan Bar.

As a very large proportion of US
must either direct the work of those
who serve usor follow the directions
of those whom we serve, the ques-
ton of the duties which employee
owes to employer is indeed vital.
The method that an employer
usually adopts to enforces his othor
ity is to dismiss from his service
the employee who fails to obey his
commands or preform the duties
expected of him. The fear of los
ing the Job is what holds most
employees to their duties. The
employee usually enforce his rights
by quitting when he is ordered to
perform task which he believes
unreasonable. In cases where the
employee has been hired for no de-
definite period, and there is no
understanding that the employment
is to continue for any period, the
relation Of employer and employee
is continued merely at the will of
the.parties and may be readily dis
solved by either. But where there
is a definite agreement-a contract
between employer and employee,
fixing a term of employment, the
employer may not discharge the
employee without adequate grounds
When we speak of master" in
the popular sense we usually think
Of one who has wide authority over
the person of an employee who is in
a decidedly inferior position. We
are inclined to think of servant"
as one serving in somewhat mental
capacity But such is not the mean
ing Of master and servant in legal
Technology. The word master and
servant are as broad as employer
and employee, including all employ
ers and all employees, whatever
their rank, whatever the Importance
or responsibility of their calling
The genera al manager with the wild
est authority employed at a salary
of a hundred thousand dollars 8
year is, in law, servant. The
simplest employer is master.
The duty of the servant to obey
the master is fundamental. 1t is of
the essence of the contract of en-
ployment and must always be
recognized. "A promise by the SER
want to obey the lawful and reason
able orders of his master within the
scope of his contract is implied by
law" said a New York judge. Sub
mission to the masters will is the
law Of the contract. An authority
on this subject has written, where
a servant deliberately violates his
masters orders, or refuses to obey
them when giving, he is clearly
guilty of the grossest breach of con-
tract. His duty is to obey the mas
ter in all things for which he be-
came bound expressly or in which
obedience is implied from the nature
of the service undertaken"
The employers usual redress for
a refusal to obey on the part of his
servant is a dismissal from his SER
vice. This right of master to
dismiss servant who has violated
this duty of obedience is firmly
settled. AS to just what amounts
to such a defiance of proper author
ity as to justify an employer in dis
missing an employee whom it has
been agreed is to serve for definite
period is the question that is OF
most immediate interest and impor.
tance to the employer and employee.
Spaine was a farm laborer in the
employ of Arnott for the usual term
of one year. He usually breakfast
ed at o'clock and dined at 2. One
day Arnott ordered him to go with
some horses 30 the marsh which
was a mile off, before, dinner, din
ner then being ready. The plaintiff
said that be had done his due, and
would not 60 until he had had his
dinner. Arnott told him to go
about his business, and he went
without making any submission to