James v. Le Roy
6 Johns. 274
Opinion
This is the case of an apprentice, employed by the defendants, without the consent or knowledge of his master. The master is entitled to his earnings, whether the defendants did, or did not know that he was an apprentice. (1 Vez. sen. 83. 48. 1 Salk. 68. 1 Comyn on Contracts, 224, 225.) In case of a hired servant, the employer must have notice, to make himself answerable; (2 Lev. 63. 1 Black. Comm. 429.) The decision, at the circuit, was correct, and the motion for a new trial is denied.
Rule refused.
Footnotes
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
James v. Le Roy, 6 Johns. 274 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1810).
6 Johns. 274 (James v. Le Roy) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Jones v. Fort
36 Ala. 449 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1860)
Bowes v. Tibbets
7 Me. 457 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1831)
Plummer v. Webb
19 F. Cas. 891 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Maine, 1827)
Trongott v. Byers
5 Cow. 480 (New York Supreme Court, 1826)
Steele v. Thacher
22 F. Cas. 1204 (D. Maine, 1825)
Gale v. Parrot
1 N.H. 28 (Superior Court of New Hampshire, 1817)
James v. Le Roy
1 Ant. N.P. Cas. 159 (New York Supreme Court, 1809)