BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £5, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
Scottish Court of Session Decisions |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish Court of Session Decisions >> Mary Baird v Lady Don. [1766] Hailes 839 (14 July 1779) URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1766/Hailes020839-0522.html Cite as: [1766] Hailes 839 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
[1766] Hailes 839
Subject_1 DECISIONS of the LORDS OF COUNCIL AND SESSION, reported by SIR DAVID DALRYMPLE, LORD HAILES.
Subject_2 MASTER AND SERVANT.
Subject_3 Omission to give Warning.
Date: Mary Baird
v.
Lady Don
14 July 1779 Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
[Faculty Collection, VIII. 165; Dictionary, 9182.]
Hailes. It is plain that Lady Don did not call for the inventories and dismiss her housekeeper till after the term. This is certainly irregular: it is said that servants sometimes leave their masters at the term without giving any warning, and that the masters do not bring any action against such servants, either for damages or to oblige them to fulfil their service. The observation is true, but the inference is not just; servants who so conduct themselves are not worthy of their masters giving themselves any trouble about them, and the masters are in general well rid of them.
Gardenston. Lady Don gave no warning till after the term, and therefore wages and damages are due. What is there that should hinder this? “That she went away pleasantly.” The contrary is proved, “that she gave up her
inventories.” How could she do otherwise? “That Lady Don gave her 12s. for a ticket in the stage-coach.” This is admitted to be a favour, and it may impute in the question as to quantum of damages. Covington. If a master may turn off a servant in this precipitate manner, without cause and without warning, so also may a servant leave his master without warning. This would be exceedingly inconvenient. When a tenant is obliged to remove without warning, it has been found that the master, although not bound to give a regular warning, was bound to make notification to the tenant.
President. Notice is absolutely necessary on the part both of master and servant: without it there is tacit relocation. Were it otherwise, the consequences would be ruinous, especially to servants.
On the 14th July 1779, “The Lords found the pursuer entitled to L.5 as a half-year's wages; to L.6: 6s. as board wages, and to expenses of process;” altering Lord Monboddo's interlocutor.
Act. R. Corbet. Alt. P. Murray, Ilay Campbell.
The electronic version of the text was provided by the Scottish Council of Law Reporting
