HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.
![handle is hein.slavery/ssactsengr0326 and id is 1 raw text is: &IOAtE V. RENNIE
Keane having obtained a rule nisi accordingly,
Pearce now shewed cause. No doubt the gist of the action for seduction is the
loss of service; but working at shirtmaking for the benefit of the plaintiff was a
sufficient service In Bennett v. Allcott (2 T. R. 166) it is said that in actions of this
kind the slightest evidence of service is sufficient. Making tea might be a sufficient
service. In Irwin v. Dearman (11 East, 23) it was held that damages beyond the bare
loss of service might be recovered by one who had adopted and bred up the daughter
of a friend. [Pollock, C. B. It is difficult to say that any person living in a house
as an inmate and relation is not bound to obey the reasonable orders of the head of
the home.]
Keane, in support of the rule. All the cases shew. that there must be a -real
service in order to enable a plaintiff to maintain an action for the seduction. If the
evidence in the present case were sufficient, it would be enough if a servant went home
occasionally on Sunday, and then made tea for her parents.
POLLOCK, C. B. We are all agreed that there was no service in this case. The
service must be a real, genuine servicei such as a parent, master or mistress may
command. Here the girl did work for her mother, by the consent of the lady who
was her true mistress. It was argued that if a daughter making tea in the house of
her parent is a sufficient service to entitle the parent to sue for the loss of such
service, a parent might sue in the case of a domestic ser-[18]-vant going home on
Sunday evenings and making tea there. But here, as in that case, there was merely
a permission which at any moment might have been withdrawn. The entire services
of the girl belonged to her master. However painful it may be that there should be
wrong without a remedy, we must leave the law as we find it. We cannot make that
a service which was no service. The rule therefore will be absolute to enter a nonsuit.
BRAMWELL, B. I entirely agree. Our duty is to administer the law as we find it
-not to amend it. The law is that an action for seduction is only maintainable
where the relation of master and servant exists. Is there any evidence that such
relation existed here ? In the ordinary case of a person living in a house as a member
of the family, it is very reasonable to hold that the relation of master and servant
(determinable at will) exists between the parties. There is no evidence that any such
relation existed here. It is not impossible that one servant should have two masters:
he might serve one by day and another by night. But the legitimate inference from
the facts here is, that this young girl was servant to Mrs. Ross at every minute of the
day. She could not, therefore, be at any time the servant of another.
WATSON, B. I am of the same opinion. The action is founded on the loss of
service. The plaintiff has enjoyed certain advantages by the permission of the girl's
mistress. The loss is not a loss of the services of the girl, but of the benefit of the
permission of the mistress.
CHANNELL, B., concurred.
Rule absolute.(a)
[19] HOARE AND OTHERS V. RENNIE AND ANOTHER. Nov. 14 & 16, 1859.-To
a declaration on an agreement, stating that the defendants agreed to buy of the
plaintiffs 667 tons of iron, to be shipped from Sweden in the months of June,
July, August and September, and in about equal portions each month, at 151. 10s.
per ton delivered, on arrival in London; that sellers should have the option of
commencing shipments in May, and also of completing the whole by the end of
July; and alleging, as a breach, the refusal to accept or pay for the iron, or any
part thereof ; the defendants pleaded that the plaintiffs did not avail themselves
of the option of commencing shipments in May; that in June the plaintiffs
shipped 21 tons, being a much less quantity than was required to be shipped
during that month by the terms of the contract; that the plaintiffs failed to com-
plete the shipment for the month of June, according to the terms of the contract;
and were never ready to deliver such a quantity of iron, shipped from Sweden in
June, as is specified in the contract, and were not ready and willing to deliver to
the defendants the said small quantity shipped, until after the defendants had
notice that the plaintiffs were not ready and willing, and were unable to fulfil
(a) See Manley v. Field, 7 C. B. (N. S.) 96.
1083
5 H. & 4. 18.](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0326&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)