Servant

One who serves; one who serves another (termed his master), under a contract of hire; one who serves or undertakes to serve another for a stipulated consideration or wage. 2 Kent's Com. 258-261; one employed to perform an inferior and menial service, 17 111. App. 200; a hireling who makes a part of a man's family, employed for money, to assist in the economy of the family, or in matters connected with it. 3 S. & E. (Pa.) 353. Bequests to servants construed. Williams Exs. 1152; 27 Bea. 226; 26 Bea. 1472; L. J. Ch. 162; 9 Hare 551; 2 Vern. 546; 16 Ves. 486; 11 L. J. Ch. 223. Servants who take priority in bankruptcy. Mont. & McA. 95, 194; 6 Jur. 898; 42 L.J. Bank. 49; 21 W. R. 523.

One who serves; one who serves another, termed the master, under a contract of hire. v. Fellow-servant; Vice-principal.

Is used with somewhat different shades of meaning.

In its early sense, a hireling employed in and about a house to perform duties of an inferior nature — tasks appropriate for a serf — were called servants. These are now called, when there is need to distinguish them particularly, domestic or menial servants. More recently, the word has been extended to embrace persons employed by men in various trades and avocations, to render miscellaneous assistance, without having, as an agent has, an authority to act in the place of the master. In some such general sense as this the word appears used in such rules of law as that a master is or is not responsible for the act or neglect of his servant, that an action lies for interfering with or enticing away one's servant, that stockis the sense in the rule that an employer is not liable to one servant for an injury received by the negligence or Unskilf ulness of a fellow-servant; for here persons who in other respects would be deemed agents are embraced. But there is some tendency to adopt the word employe for this more general meaning, and keep " servant " to its old sense of nondescript inferior assistance. Within the purview of rules holding a master or employer liable for the act or neglect of his servant, a drover travelling in a freight train of a railroad company with his live-stock, without paying any fare other than what was included in the amount of freight paid on his stock, is not an employe or servant of the railroad company. Tlinn v. Philadelphia, Wilmington, & Baltimore E. R. Co., 1 Uaust. 469. Servant, in such connection, does not include a contractor engaged under an entire contract to construct or perform work, in doing which he is not subject to the direction or control of the employer as to details. Forsyth v. Hooper, 11 Allen, 419; Aikin v. Wasson, 24 N. Y. 482. Servants of such contractor are not servants to the general employer. Callahan «. Burlington, &e. R. R. Co., 23 Iowa, 662; Young V. New York, &c. R. R. Co., m Barh. 229. Servants are of two kinds: Menial servants, being persons retained by others to live within the walls of the house, and to perform the work and business of the household. Persons employed by men of trades and professions under them, to assist them in their particular callings. Mozley ^ W. Servants are hirelings who make a part of a man's family, employed for money, to assist in the economy of the family, or in matters connected with it; persons who, from the nature of the station, must render servile offices within the walls of a house. The term may well include a bar-keeper in a tavern. Boniface v. Scott, 3 Sera. Sf R. 351. A person employed as a superintendent or " boss," is not a servant, within a statute which punishes the employment of the servant of another. Bryan v. State, 44 Ga. 328. Wliere a person of full age is hired by the year as a clerk, by a merchant, the relation of master and servant is thereby created; and the employer may maintain an action, on the case, for loss of service, against one who unlawfully imprisons the person employed. Woodward u. Washbum, 3 Den. 869. An agricultural laborer who engages with a land-owner to work on the land for a share in the crop, is not a servant, fully prevents the serrant from performing his duty. Burgess v. Carpenter, 2 S. C. 7. A civil engineer, employed by a railroad company at a fixed salary, and subject, in his duties, to the company's orders, is a servant of the company, within a statute declaring stockholders liable for debts to laborers and servants; and may recover, also, his disbursements to an assistant. Conant v. Van Schaick, 24 Barb. 87. A contractor for construction of part of a railroad is not a servant, within such a statute. The word servant in the connection is limited by association with laborers; the intent of the statute is to protect those who perform manual labor. Aikin v. Was- Bon, 24 N. Y. 482. The'secretary of a corporation, being an officer or agent of the company, is not a servant, within such a statute. Cofiin v. Reynolds, 37 N. Y. 640. To the contrary was Richardson v. Abendroth, 43 Barb. 162. A person employed by a manxifacturing corporation as its civil engineer and travelling agent at a fixed salary, is a servant of the corporation, within the meaniiig of such a statute; for he is in subordination to the commands of those under whose direction and authority he acts. This constitutes the relation of master and servant. A servant is one who is merely a helper. Williamson v. Wadsworth, 49 Barb. 294. One who was employed by a manufacturing company to perform a variety of services, who was an overseer, and yet worked with the men, worked in the mills of the company, and had a general supervision of their business, and kept their books, was held entitled to recover against stockholders, as a servant of the company, on the ground that, while the word laborer in such a statute must probably be restricted to mean manual work, servant cannot be confined to mere menial service. " Laborer " is more distinctive than " servant," and embraces a smaller class; the former comprehending such only as perform labor with their hands, while the latter includes also such as do menial services. Hovey v. Ten Broeck, 3 Robt. 315. s. p. Vincent v. Bamford, 12 Abb. Pr. s. s. 252. A police-officer is not a servant of the city which appoints him, in any such seflse as to take away his right of action against it for an injury sustained by reason of a defective highway. Kimball v. Boston, 1 Allen, 417. All agents and employes on a railroad who are engaged in the same general employment and business of keeping up, running, and operating the road are fellow-servants, within the rule that a corporation or other employer is not liable for injuries suffered by one servant solely through the carelessness or negligence of another servant of the same master, engaged in the same general service or business, and under the same general control. Master mechanand rolling-stock are fellow-servants with engineers, conductors, and other persons engaged in running trains. Haugh v. Texas, &c. Ey. Co., 22 Int. Rev. Bee. 257.