by  the  (lay  or  hour  as  by  either.  The  respoDsibility  of  the  defendant  would
thus  be  affected  in  a  manner  totally  inoonsistent  with  the  terms  of  his
agreement  to  pay  for  a  year's  service  in  one  certain  and  entire  amount.
Besides,  a  construction  to  this  effect  is  utterly  repugnant  to  the  general
understanding  of  the  nature  of  such  engagements.  The  usages  of  the
country  and  common  opinion  upon  subjects  of  this  description  are  espe-
cially to  be  regarded,  and  we  are  bound  judicially  to  take  notice  of  that
which  no  one  is  in  fact  ignorant.  It  may  be  safe  to  affirm,  that  in  no  ease
has  a  contract  in  the  terms  of  the  one  under  consideration,  been  construed
by  practical  men  to  give  a  right  to  demand  the  agreed  compensation  before
the  performance  of  the  labor,  and  that  the  employer  and  emplo^-ed  alike
universally  so  understand  it.  The  rule  of  law  is  in  entire  accordance  with
this  sentiment,  and  it  would  be  a  flagrant  violation  of  the  first  pnnciples
of  justice  to  hold  it  otherwise.
The  performance  of  a  year's  service  was,  in  this  case,  a  condition  prece-
dent to  the  obligation  of  payment.  The  plaintiff  must  perform  the  condi-
tion, before  he  is  entitled  to  recover  anything  under  the  contract,  and  he
has  no  right  to  renounce  his  agreement  and  recover  upon  a  q^ianium  mentit.
The  cases  of  M'Millan  v.  Vauderlip,*  Jennings  v.  Camp,'  and  Eeab  v.  Moor,*
are  analogous  in  their  circumstances  to  the  case  at  bar,  and  are  directly
and  strongly  in  point.  The  decisions  in  the  English  cases  express  the  same
doctrine  :  Waddington  v,  Oliver,^  Ellis  v.  Hamlen ;'  and  the  principle  is
fully  supported  by  all  the  elementary  writers.
