Bryden v. Delaware, Lackawanna & Western Railroad

Citations

• 262 Pa. 211
• 105 A. 79
• 1918 Pa. LEXIS 623

Syllabus

<p>Master and servant — Qlerhs—Compensation — Notary public — ■ Extra compensation for talcing affidavits — Liability of master — Case for jury.</p> <p>1. Ordinarily the master is entitled to the servant’s earnings made during a period of time which he is bound, under the terms of the contract of hiring, to devote to the discharge of his duties, except in so far as the rights of the parties may have been modified by an expressed or implied agreement.</p> <p>2. Where a notary is employed as a clerk to perform clerical services only at a stipulated salary, and thereafter at the special request of his employer takes affidavits for which he receives no additional compensation, it is for the jury to determine in an action for the notary fees allowed by law whether the taking of the affidavits was part of the service contemplated by the plaintiff’s contract of employment for which he was compensated by his stipulated salary, or whether it was an additional service for which he should be paid the usual fees, and the entry of a nonsuit in such case was error.</p> <p>3. In such ease, the fact that plaintiff upon the payment of his salary signed the pay roll upon which was written “Received of (defendant) the sums set opposite our respective names, in full settlement of all claims to the close of the month named,” did not necessarily preclude plaintiff from recovery, where it appeared that he was required to stand in line at the pay window, had no opportunity to read what was written on the pay roll, but only to sign it, was then given his pay envelope and hurried from the window.</p>