Notes of Recent Cases. founded was signed by "Smith." The de fendant's full name was Isaac H. Smith. This, it is held, is not an anonymous publi cation. The definition given in the Century Dictionary of the term "anonymous" is re lied on. LITIGATION. (FAILURE то MAKE PARTY—ACTION FOR DAMAGES.) KENTUCKY COURT OF APPEALS.
In Friend v. Means, 78 Southwestern Re porter 164, the plaintiff, who was the holder of an unrecorded deed subject to a remote vendor's lien, was not made a party defend ant to proceedings forclosing the lien, and on this account she brought an action for damages against the remote vendor. The court says that the action is both unique and untenable. Defendant was un der no duty to make plaintiff a party, even if he had known she owned an interest in the land. No legal right of hers could be pre judiced in an action to which she was not a party, and that she was not a party was due to her failure to record her deed. Even if she had been a party, she could not have fared better than she did, as, under the agreed facts, she had no defense. Her only remedy for the loss she sustained is upon the warranties she holds from her vendors. No authorities are cited. MASTER AND SERVANT. (EMPLOYMENT BY YEAR—DISCHARGE OP SERVANT—ACTION FOR WAGES.) NEW YORK SUPREME COURT.
In Walsh v. New York & Kentucky Co., 85 New York Supplement 83, the court holds that where one is employed as a salesman for a year, his wages to be paid by the month, and he is discharged after a month's wages are due, and after he has performed several days' work on the next month, he can recover the month's wages, subject to any counterclaim of his employer, but for the subsequent days he can recover only if his discharge was wrongful, and then only as damages. The case of Turner v. Kouwenhoven, 100 N. Y. 115, 2 Northeastern Reporter 637, is
365
distinguished, and Tipton v. Feitner, 20 N. Y. 429, Bowdish v. Briggs, 5 App. Div. 592, 39 New York Supplement 371, and Clark v. Fernoline Chemical Co., 5 New York Sup plement 190, are cited as supporting the rule that even where a contract is made for a. year, but there is provision for periodical payments during the time, and the contract in its nature does not necessarily contem plate entire performance as a condition pre cedent to compensation, the servant, when discharged for cause, is entitled to recover the amount due for the month, or his month ly wages; as wages earned, subject to re coupment by the master for any damages suf fered by him by reason of the neglect, unskillfulness, or nonperformance of theservant. As to the days of the succeeding month, the court says a distinction is to be observed, the servant's action being not a suit to obtain a proportionate amount of the month's salary, but rather an action of quan tum meruit to recover for breach of contract. Arnold v. Adams, 27 App. Div. 348, 49New York Supplement 1041, and Elliot v. Miller, 17 New York Supplement 526, are cited on this latter point. MASTER'S PERIL. (RESCUE BY SERVANT—INJURY — MASTER'S LIABILITY.) U.WA SUPREME COURT-
In Savior v. Parsons, 98 Northwestern Reporter 500, the plaintiff, who was in de fendant's employ, sued to recover for inju ries sustained in endeavoring to rescue hisemployer from a position of peril resulting from the latter's attempt to undermine a brick wall. In discussing the plaintiff's right of recovery the court says, that negli gence on the part of defendant, either toward the person rescued, or the party making the rescue, is esential. Evansville & Crawford R. Co. v. Hiatt, 17 Ind. 102, Donahoe v. Rail way Co., 83 Mo. 560, 53 Am. Rep. 594, and Grämlich v. Wurst, 86 Pa. 74, 27 Am. Rep. 684, are cited as sustaining this view. The court says that it is not pretended that plain tiff was not assigned a safe place to work, nor is it claimed that there was any want of
