This preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.
Unformatted text preview: Holding: The court was in error in saying it might be inferred. Judgment reversed and a new trial awarded. Rationale: According to the act, if a man if a man is found to have done work for another, and there appears no known relation between them that accounts for such service, the law presumes a contract of hiring. But in this case, the employer was the owners son, so they had relation between the two parties. So it is not implied contract in this aspect. On the other hand, if a son in the employment of his father, we did not infer a contract of hiring, because the principle of family affection was sufficient to account for the family association, and did not demand the inference of a contract. Like this present case, the son worked for his father, so the express contract had been proved....
View Full Document
This note was uploaded on 11/22/2011 for the course BUS 401 taught by Professor Terrywilson during the Spring '11 term at Solano Community College.
- Spring '11