Decisions have gone farther in allowing an employee who has performed a part of his contract of employment, for which no divisible portion of compensation is provided by the contract,42 to recover reasonable compensation though his failure to render further performance was due to his wilful abandonment of the contract or to his discharge for good cause. In an early and leading New Hampshire decision 43 an employee who had wilfully abandoned his contract before substantial performance had been rendered, was thus allowed to recover on a quantum meruit; and this decision has been followed in a number of American jurisdictions.44 But in England and a majority of American States it is held that such an employee can recover nothing.45 Jurisdictions which allow recovery to one who has law have not been applied. The cases where one insured by a policy has paid the premium and subsequently during the term has broken a warranty, and thereafter has been denied recovery of any portion of the premium, supra, Sec. 757, may also be considered.

42 As to recovery on the contract, see tupra, Sec. 1028.

43 Britton v. Turner, 6 N. H. 481, 26 Am. Dec. 713.

44 Ricks v. Yates, 5 Ind. 115; Pixler v. Nichols, 8 la. 106, 74 Am. Dec. 298; Byeriee v. Mendel, 39 la. 382; Porter v. Whitlock, 142 la. 66, 120 N. W. 649; Barnes v. Bradford (la. 1917), 165 N. W. 306; Duncan v. Baker, 21 Kan. 99; Asher v. Tomlinson, 22 Ky. L. Rep. 1494, 60 S. W. 714; Fuller v. Rice, 52 Mich. 435, 18 N. W. 204; Williams v. Crane, 153 Mich. 89, 116 N. W. 554; Parcell v. McComber, 11 Neb. 209, 7 N. W. 529, 38 Am. Rep. 366; Murphy v. Sampson, 2 Neb. (Unof.) 297, 96 N. W. 494; Laton v. King, 19 N. H. 280; Clough v. Clough, 26 N. H. 24; Bedow v. Tonkin, 5 S. Dak. 432, 59 N. W. 222; Stolle v. Stuart, 21 S. Dak. 643, 114 N. W. 1007; Carroll v. Welch, 26 Tex. 147. See also Chamblee v. Baker, 95 N. C. 98; McCurry v. Purgason, 170 N. Car. 463, 87 S. E. 244, Ann. Cas. 1918 A. 907.

45 Huttman v. Boulnois, 2 C. & P. 510; Saunders v. Whittle, 33 L. T. (N. S.) 816; Gregson v. Watson, 34 L. T. (N. S.) 143; Mallory v. Mackaye, 92 Fed. 749, 34 C. C. A. 653; Carbon Hill Coal Co. v. Cunningham, 153 Ala. 573, 44 So. 1016 (cf. Hartsell v. Turner, 196 Ala. 299, 71 So. 658); Latham v. Barwick, 87 Ark. 328, 113 S. W. 646; Lyden v. Spohn-Patrick Co., 155 Cal. 177, 100 Pac. 236; Ransome Const. Co. v. Von Schroeder, 34 Cal. App. 475, 167 Pac. 1144; Henderson v. Stiles, 14 Ga. 135 (but see Hill v. Balkcom, 79 Ga. 444, 5 S. E. 200); Hansell v. Erickson, 28 111. 257; Hofs-tetter v. Gash, 104 111. App. 455; Callahan v. Stafford, 18 La. Ann. 556; Miller v. Goddard, 34 Me. 102, 56 Am.

Dec. 638; Stark v. Parker, 2 Pick. 267, 13 Am. Dec. 425; Dougherty v. Gring, 89 Md. 535, 544, 43 Atl. 912; Townes v. Cheney, 114 Md. 362, 79 Atl. 590; Ohnstead v. Beale, 19 Pick. 528; Homer v. Shaw, 177 Maas. 1, 58 N. E. 160, 212 Maas. 113, 98 N. E. 697; Frati v. Jannini, 226 Mass. 430, 115 N. E. 746; Nelichka v. Esterly, 29 Minn. 146, 12 N. W. 457; Peterson v. Mayer, 46 Minn. 468, 469, 49 N. W. 245, 13 L. R. A. 72; Timberlake v. Thayer, 71 Miss. 279, 14 So. 446, 24 L. R. A. 231; Earp v. Tyler, 73 Mo. 617; Dempsey v. Dorrance, 151 Mo. App. 429,132 S. W. 33; Isaacs v. McAndrew, 1 Mont. 437; Waite 0. Shoemaker, 50 Mont. 264, 146 Pac. 736; State v. Brokaw, 43 N. J. L. 587; Natalizzio v. Valentino, 71 N. J. L. 500, 59 Atl. 8; McMillan v. Vanderlip, 12 Johns. 165, 7 Am. Dec. 299; Lantry v. Parks, 8 Cow. 63; Turner v. Kouwen-hoven, 100 N. Y. 115, 2 N. E. 637; Seaburn v. Zachman, 99 N. Y. App. Div. 218, 90 N. Y. S. 1005; Atkinson v. Heine, 134 N. Y. App. D. 406, 119 N. Y. S. 122; Chamblee v. Baker, 95 N. C. 98; Larkin v. Buck, 11 Ohio St. 561; Steeples v. Newton, 7 Or. 110, 33 Am. Rep. 705; Wuchter v. Fitzgerald, 83 Or. 672, 163 Pac. 819; Hughes v. Cannon, 1 Sneed, 622; Winn v. South-gate, 17 Vt. 355; Patnote v. Saunders, 41 Vt. 66, 98 Am. Dec. 564; Diefenback v. Stark, 56 Wis. 462, 14 N. W. 621, 43

Am. Rep. 719; Walsh v. Fisher, 102 Wis. 172, 78 N. W. 437, 43 L. R. A. 810, 72 Am. St. 865; Blake v. Shaw, 10 U. C. Q. B. 180; Knox v. Monro, 13 Manitoba L. R. 16.

46 In the following cases it was held that a rightfully discharged employee might recover compensation. Newman v. Reagan, 63 Ga. 755 (cf. PhyBioc v. Shea, 75 Ga. 466; Parker v. Farlinger, 122 Ga. 315, 50 S. E. 98); Abendpost Co. v. Hertel, 67 Dl. App. 501; Fulton v, Heffelnnger, 23 Ind. App. 104, 54 N. E. 1079; Fuqua v. Massie, 95 Ky. 387, 25 S. W. 875; Lawrence v. Gullifer, 38 Me. 532; Pungs v. American Brake-Beam Co., 124 Mich. 344, 82 N. W. 1066; Robinson v. Sanders, 24 Miss. 391; Wuchter v. Fitzgerald, 83 Or. 672, 163 Pac. 819; Byrd v. Boyd, 4 McCord L. 246, 17 Am. Dec. 740; Massey v. Taylor, 5 Coldw. 447, 98 Am. Dec. 429; Levy v. Jarrett (Tex. Civ. App.), 198 S. W. 333; Badere v. Goodrich, 63 Wash. 650, 116 Pac. 274; Hildebrand v. Amer. Fine Art Co., 109 Wis. 171, 85 N. W. 268, 53 L. R. A. 826. See also Selig v. Botts, 128 Ark., 167 193 S. W. 534.

47 Turner v. Robinson, 5 Barn. <fc Ad. 789; Ridgway v. Hungerford Market Co., 3 Ad. & El. 171; Boston Deep Sea Fishing & Ice Co. v. Ansell, 39 Ch. D. 339, 364; Hartman v. Rogers, 69 Cai. 643, 11 Pac. 581 (see Cal. Civil Code,

The test of honest purpose to fulfil the obligations of the contract which has been so generally applied in building contracts seems to furnish the best rule also for contracts of employment. Under such a test either abandonment of the contract or rightful discharge might not bar recovery for services actually rendered if the employee had acted in good faith though under a mistaken view of his rights. It should be observed in this connection that it is generally recognized law that if an employee who is a fiduciary is guilty of disloyalty to his employer, he forfeits all right in any form of action, to compensation for the services during the performance of which the disloyalty occurred.48 This principle will not, however, preclude recovery for services in another and separate transaction; 49 nor presumably for a divisible sum due prior to the lack of fidelity for services rendered, although all the services prior and subsequent were part of a continuous transaction.