19 Ohio Cir. Ct. 663; Roddy 0. United Mine Workers, 41 Okl. 621,139 Pac 126; Christensen p. Pacific Coast Borax Co., 26 Or. 302, 38 Pac 127; Kirk 0. Hartman, 63 Pa. 97, 105; Coffin 0. Landis, 46 Pa. 426; Booth 0. National India Rubber Co., 19 R. 1.696, 36 Atl. 714; St. Paul F. & M. Ins. Co. v. Ulbright (Tenn. Ch. App.), 48 S. W. 131; St. Louis Southwestern R. Co. 0. Griffin, 106 Tex. 477, 171 S. W. 703.

21The Pokanoket, 166 Fed. Rep. 241,84 C. G. A. 49 (monthly payment); Warden v. Hinds, 163 Fed. 201, 90 C. C. A. 449,25 L. R. A. 529; Howard v. East Tennessee R. Co., 91 Ala. 268, 8 So. 86S (monthly payment); (cf. Moss v. Decatur Furnace Co., 92 Ala. 269, 9 So. 188, 30 Am. St. Rep. 55); Haney v. Caldwell, 35 Ark. 166; Kansas Pacific R. Co. v. Robertson, 3 Col. 142 (yearly salary); Orr v. Ward, 73 111. 318 (yearly salary); Greer v. Arlington Mills Mfg. Co., 1 Pennewill, 581, 43 Atl. 609 (yearly salary); Mc-Cullough Iron Co. v. Carpenter, 67 Md. 554, 557, 11 Atl. 176. ("It is also well settled that hiring at so much a week, month, or year, no time being specified, does not of itself make more than an indefinite hiring.)" Evans v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 24 Mo. App. 114 (monthly payment); Harrington v. Brockman Com. Co., 107 Mo. App.

418, 81 S. W. 629; Watson v. Gugino, 204 N. Y. 535, 98 N. E. 18 (weekly payment); Martin v. New York Life Ins. Co., 148 N. Y. 117,42 N. E. 416 (yearly salary); Edwards v. Seaboard R. Co., 121 N. C. 490, 28 S. E. 137 (yearly salary); Booth t>. Natl. India Rubber Co., 19 R. I. 696, 36 Atl. 714 (yearly salary); Resener v. Watts, Hitter & Co., 73 W. Va. 342, 80 S. E. 839 (monthly or annual salary); Prentiss v. Ledyard 28 Wis. 131 (yearly payment); Kcs-loski p. Kelly, 122 Wis. 665,100 N. W. 1037; (but see Kellogg v. Citisens1 Ins. Co., 94 Wis. 554, 69 N. W. 362); Wilder v. United States, 5 Ct. of Claims, 462.

22 See infra, Sec.620.

23 National L. Ins. Co. v. Ferguson, 194 Ala. 658, 69 So. 823 (weekly payment); Magarahan v. Wright, 83 Ga. 773, 10 S. E. 584 (monthly payment); Odom v. Bush, 126 Ga. 184, 53 8, E.

1013 (monthly payment); Webb v. Mc-Cranie, 12 Ga. App. 269, 77 S. . 175 (weekly payment); Nichols v. Coolahan, 10 Metc. 449 (monthly payment); (cf. Maynard v. Royal Worcester Corset Co, 200 Mass. 1, 4, 85 N. E. 877); Chamberlain v. Detroit Stove Works, 103 Mich. 124, 61 N. W. 532 (annual salary); Horn v. Western Land Assoc, 22 Minn. 233 (annual salary); Cap-ron v. Strout, 11 Not. 304 (price "per day payable monthly" held monthly hiring); Beach v. Mullin, 34 N. J. L. 343 (monthly payment); Jones v. Manhattan Manure Co, 91 N. J. L. 403,103 Atl. 984 (price "per year payable monthly," also providing for contingent payments at Christmas and Easter, Held yearly hiring); Lyons v. Pease Piano Co, (N. J. L, 1919) 107 Atl. 66 (weekly salary, but also com-mission on annual sales. Held to indicate yearly hiring); Greasing v. Musical Instrument Sales Co, 222 N. Y. 215, 118 N. E. 627 (guaranteed income of a certain amount per annum); Pinck-ney v. Talmage, 32 S. C. 364, 10 S. E. I0S3 (wages payable monthly " at the rate of $500 a year" held monthly hiring); Young v. Lewis, 9 Tex. 73 (monthly payment); San Antonio etc. By. Co. v. Sale (Tex. Civ. App.), 31 S. W. 325 (monthly payment); Crone-mfflar v. Milling Co, 134 Wis. 248,114 N. W. 432 (monthly payment). So in California Civil Code, Sec.2010, it is provided that if payments are made at a fixed rate, a hiring is intended for the same period in the absence of express agreement. And in 5 2011 it is provided that in the absence of agreement, custom, or fixed rate of hiring, a month's employment is presumed. This California legislation has been copied in Mont. Rev. Codes (1907), Sec.5 5280, 5281; N. Dak. Rev. Codes (1905), Sec.Sec. 5572, 5573; Okla. Gen. St. (1908), $4044; S. Dak. Rev. Code (1903), Sec.Sec. 1477, 1478. The statutes of these States also provide that on the termination of one period of service for a term thus implied, if the service continues without new agreement, another term of the same length is presumed. See also Emmens v. Elderton, 4 H. L. C. 624; Buckingham v. Surrey & Hants Canal Co, 46 L. T. (N. S.) 885; Fox-all c. International Land Credit Co, 16 L. T. (N. .S.) 637; Smith v. Theo-bald, 86 Ky. 141, 146, 5 S. W. 394; Great Northern Hotel Co. v. Leopold, 72 111. App. 108. In considering the English decisions cited above, it must be borne in mind that in England an indefinite hiring is presumptively for a year, and consequently a yearly salary merely adds force to the general presumption.

24Evans v. Roe, L. R. 7 C. P. 138; Foltz v. Fuller, 38 App. D. C. 139; Maynard v. Royal Worcester Corset Co., 200 Mass. 1, 5, 85 N. E. 877.

25 In Pfiester v. Western Union Tel. Co, 282 111. 69, 118 N. E. 407, 409, the court said of an offer to a baseball player: "The message of the Milwaukee Club to plaintiff did not expressly say its offer was $300 per mouth for the season, but both that club and the plaintiff knew the custom and practice of contracting for the playing season of some six months, and it will be implied, in the absence of an expressed contrary infrequently an offer or agreement attempts to specify the length of the hiring, but does so in such general language as to raise a question whether the promise is too indefinite for enforcement. Thus "permanent" employment is sometimes promised.26 This may fairly be held to mean that the employee is to serve so long as he remains able to do his work properly, and the employer continues to be engaged in the business to which the hiring related.27 So a promise to work as long as the promisor is able, is sufficiently definite.28 Or to work as long as a business is carried on.29 The fact that damages may be difficult to calculate if such a promise is broken is not an insuperable objection.30 On the other hand, a promise for a "long engagement" is too indefinite for enforcement.31