return the money. A principal is not bound by a contract made by one acting as agent for him without authority, and he cannot ratify such contract so as to bind the other party if such other party objects, as there is no mutuality in such a contract. A husband directed a contractor to make improvements on his wife's real estate, without her consent. She knew the work was being done, but did not sanction it nor direct the work. The husband did not claim to be acting as her agent. It was held that the wife was not liable to the contractor, as mere silence is not sufficient to constitute a ratification. The pastor of a church without authority directed certain repairs to be made to the church building. The members and trustees of the church knew that the work was being done and subsequently paid for part of it. It was held that this constituted a ratification and that the church was liable for the pastor's acts. One who accepts a compromise made in his behalf by another thereby ratifies the compromise, if made without authority, and a ratification of part of the unauthorized compromise will ratify the whole. A farmer's son purchased a corn planter in his father's absence in his behalf but without authority. The father on returning to the farm was informed of what the son had done, and kept on using the machine for about a month. At the end of that time he attempted to return the machine. It was held that he had by his conduct ratified the son's act, and was liable for the value of the planter. "A principal, who, after knowledge of the terms of a sale or purchase made by the agent, does not disaffirm, but accepts and enjoys all the benefits thereof, cannot afterwards deny the authority of the agent to make the same upon the terms agreed upon." Where an employe wrongfully cuts timber on land not belonging to his employer, and the employer refuses to give up such timber to the rightful owner, he ratifies the act of the employe and is liable for the value of the timber. The proprietor of a candy store left the management of it to his son, but told him not to buy goods from a certain party. The son did so in violation of instructions, but the father saw from time to time that the goods were being shipped, and made no objection. It was decided that he had ratified the son's acts.

Dissolution: The relation of principal and agent may

be dissolved in various ways. If the agency has been created for a specific period it is determined by the lapse of that period; if the relation was at will, that is, for no specific period, it may be terminated by either party giving notice to the other of his desire to terminate it. The relation of agency, although it exists by contract for a specific time, may be terminated by either party upon giving notice to the other, before its expiration, and such relation will then cease, although the party wrongfully terminating it may be liable for breach of contract. The authority of an agent may be revoked at any time, unless it is coupled with an interest. The acts performed after revocation of authority do not bind the principal, except as to parties who have previously dealt with the agent and who are entitled to notice of the termination of the relation. If the agency was created for a specific purpose, it is terminated by its accomplishment.

When the agency is coupled with an interest it cannot be revoked as far as the interest is concerned. By such an interest is meant a property interest in the subject matter of the agency, vested in the agent. An interest in the outcome of the agency, such as compensation, is not an interest in the subject matter such as prevents revocation. The observance of any special form in revoking an agency is not necessary; all that is necessary is that the intention to do so be manifested by either principal or agent. The intention on the part of either principal or agent to terminate the relation must be communicated to the other. When an agent has been given a power of attorney which has been recorded, the revocation of it must be recorded where the power is recorded. Parties who have dealt with an agent have a right to rely on his continued authority unless there is something in the nature of the transaction which would give them reason to believe otherwise. For instance, the continued existence of the authority of a special agent is not presumed. If the continuance is presumed, parties dealing with the agent have a right to be notified of the agent's want of authority. In the absence of such notice contracts made with such persons by an agent whose authority has ceased will bind the principal.

The termination of the relation of principal and agent may also be hrought about by operation of law. The most usual case of this kind is the death of either party. Death,

however, will not affect an agency coupled with an interest, as by such an interest a specific interest in the subject-matter of the agency has been created. Parties who deal with an agent after the death of the principal, but in ignorance of it, are not protected, nor is an agent protected who deals for a principal who is supposed to be alive, but dead. In such case the agent, warranting his authority by representing himself as agent would be liable in damages to the third party, if any are suffered.

The insanity or bankruptcy of principal or agent will also terminate the relation.

CHAPTER XIX.

MASTER AND SERVANT.

Generally.--Whenever a person who is not engaged in any business on his own account renders personal services to another, and such other directs and controls the work done, the relation of master and servant exists. In order that the relation of master and servant may exist, there must be an express or implied contract of hiring between the parties. Any person may be a master or servant who can make a valid contract. The term "servant" as used in this connection has a broad meaning, and does not mean merely one who is a household servant or personal attendant. It includes anyone who is engaged in performing services immediately under the supervision and control of another, and who is under such other's directions. Often infants hire out as servants. In such cases the contract of employment is voidable at the election of the infant, but the employer is bound by it. No particular form of words is necessary to create the relation of master and servant, nor does the contract need to be in writing. If the contract is to continue for more than one year from the date of making, it must be in writing. See the chapter on the Statute of Frauds. When no time of employment is specified by the contract of the parties, it is considered one at will, that is, either party may terminate the relation at any time. The circumstances of hiring, however, may indicate that the contract is for a certain length of time, as by the week, month or year. The manner of payment of wages, in the absence of any other agreement, usually defines the character of the hiring, although it is not conclusive. Thus, one paid a certain sum per week, or month, is considered as working by the week or month, etc. When a servant works at a certain compensation per day, but is paid weekly or monthly, his contract is strictly one at will, and he may quit at any time. When

the contract is for a particular time, either under express agreement or as determined from the manner of payment, it is for such period an entire contract, and neither party can terminate it during such time except for good cause. For instance, a man working by the month can not quit during the month and his employer cannot discharge him during such time, without cause. If the employe quits during such time, he loses the wages earned during that month, and is liable for any damages caused by his quiting, and if the employer wrongfully discharges a servant during such time, he is liable for his wages to the end of the month; less any amount the servant might have earned elsewhere. A contract to work for any particular period, as for instance six months, is an entire contract, and if the employe quits before the end of the time without cause, no recovery for wages can be had from the employer. A person working by the day, week, or any other stated period, may quit at the end of any such period without giving notice, and may be discharged at the end of such period without notice. See the chapter on Contracts in this connection.

Compensation.-The wages of the servant are usually agreed upon by the parties. When they are not agreed upon, the servant is entitled to recover such an amount as his services are reasonably worth. This is called technically a recovery “quantum meruit" (meaning as much as he deserves.) A servant ordinarily is not entitled to additional pay for working overtime, unless there is an agreement to pay for such work, or unless there is a well defined usage or custom in the particular line of businesss that such work is paid for. A servant cannot recover compensation for time that he has not worked, unless there is an agreement to that effect. Wages are usually paid at certain intervals expressly or impliedly agreed upon, or at the end of the service. It is provided in Wisconsin by statute that "all wages or compensation for labor or service, unless there shall be a written contract to the contrary, shall be paid weekly or bi-weekly in cash; provided, that this section shall not apply to agricultural laborers, commercial travelers, persons employed on commission, traveling employes of railway or express companies, persons employed in logging camps, or in driving, running or manufacturing logs or lumber, nor to any person whose occupation is such as to render him inaccessible on the regular pay day.