Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 3.djvu/658

 MOOBE V. NEAFIB. 651 �of commerce will be Beriously prejudiced by the recognition of the custom. It is not, however, shown, nor does the ques- tion arise in this case, -whether the custom goes so far as to justify the hands in leaving the tug during a trip or voyage. �In this case the voyage was at an end when they were dis- charged; and in its application to such a case I see nothing embarrassing to commerce in giving effect to the usage,, Nor is it unreasonable, Its advantages are not ail on one side. If the employer may dischargp the hands at any time, they also have, under the usage, a right -which servants ordina- rily do not have. If they can obtain better employment they can leave during the month and still claim their wages up to the last day they serve. The character of the class of per- sons generally employed as hands on steam-tugs has very probably led to the establishment of this usage. TLey are mostly irresponsible persons, and very many of them have no fixed or permanent occupation. �The further objection, that the usage is contrary to law does not, I think, apply to a usage of this character. The question really is, what is the contract between the parties as to the term of service, the agreement itself not being explicit on the subject ? The rule of the common law, requiring a month's notice to terminate the employment, was adopted as being in itself reasonable, and seems to have rested on gen- eral usage. Rohinson v. Hindnuin, 3 Esp. 234, [235 ;] 2 Parsons on Contr. (6th Ed.) 35, and notes. �I see no reason, therefore, why, in case the contrary usage has become established between a particular class of mastera and servants, effect should not be given to it. It violates no principle of the common law, and the case does not seem to me to fall within that class of cases in which courts have con- demned or discouraged the introduction of usage as being contrary to some well-established principle of the common law, or as mischievous in its effect by reason of its uneettling the law or introducing troublesome local exceptions into the law merchant. Thovipson v. Riggs, 5 Wall. 663, 678 ; Hig- gins V. Moore, 34 N. Y. el7, 425, and other cases cited. �Libela dismissed, with costs. ����