If the person for whom services of a kind usually made the subject of charge are rendered knows of their rendition, he is liable therefor though he has made no express request, in the absence of special circumstances negativing his liability.1 If the person for whom the work is done knows that it is being done and that the person doing expects compensation from the person for whom it is done, and believes that such compensation will be made, and the latter does nothing to correct such impression, he is liable for the work thus done.2 In the absence of an express previous request it is necessary that the person for whom the work is done should know that it is being done and further that it is being done for his benefit and also upon his liability. If A employs B to do certain work, and B employs C to aid him therein, no implied contract between A and C exists, even if A knows that C is doing the work and that A will ultimately receive the benefit thereof, since A is liable over to B on his contract for the work thus done.3 Thus where a railroad lets a contract for grading to B and B employs C to work thereon, these facts do not give C a right of action against the railroad.4 Hence the fact that C believed that A was employing him is immaterial as affecting A's liability if A did not know of such belief and did not so act as to justify such belief.5

4 St. Croix County v. Webster, 111 Wis. 270; 87 N. W. 302.

5 Harris v. State, 9 S. D. 453; 69 N. W. 825.

6 Hyatt v. Hamilton County, 121 la. 292; 63 L. R. A. 614; 96 N. W. 855.

1 Lewis v. Meginniss, 30 Fla. 419; 12 So. 19.

2Kiser v. Holladay, 29 Or. 338; 45 Pac. 759.

3Petterson v. Ry., 134 Cal. 244; 66 Pae. 304.