Definition
Seducing to leave service is the act of inducing or persuading a person bound in service to another — typically a servant, apprentice, or employee — to abandon or quit that service before the lawful term has expired. It is classified as a tort actionable by the master or employer against the third party who committed the enticement. The wrong lies not against the servant who leaves, but against the outside party who wrongfully interfered with the master's legal interest in continued service.
The action differs from an action for loss of services through physical injury (the traditional per quod servitium amisit claim): in seducing to leave service, the interference is accomplished through persuasion, inducement, or solicitation rather than through harm to the servant's person.
Common Confusion
SEDUCING TO LEAVE SERVICE vs. SEDUCTION: These are distinct wrongs sharing a common word. Seduction in the classical common law sense refers to inducing a woman to engage in sexual intercourse through promises, flattery, or similar means — a wrong actionable by her parent or master for loss of services, not by the woman herself (the volenti non fit injuria principle barring her own recovery). Seducing to leave service, by contrast, has nothing to do with sexual conduct; it concerns the wrongful persuasion of any servant or employee to abandon a lawful service relationship. Historical sources frequently place both concepts in proximity, and researchers must read carefully to determine which action is being discussed.
SEDUCING TO LEAVE SERVICE vs. ENTICING AWAY: These terms describe the same underlying wrong and are used interchangeably in historical sources. Bouvier directs the reader to ENTICE, confirming that no meaningful doctrinal distinction separates them. In modern secondary literature, "enticement of employees" or "inducing breach of contract" is the preferred framing.
Why It Matters in Research
This term belongs to a cluster of master-servant tort actions that were significant in 18th and 19th century common law but have been largely absorbed into or displaced by modern tortious interference with contract doctrine. Researchers working in pre-20th century case law will encounter this term regularly; those working in modern materials will almost never see it as a standalone cause of action.
Several navigational traps exist in the historical corpus:
First, the term appears inconsistently. Some sources use "seducing to leave service," others use "enticing away," and still others use "harbouring" — which technically describes a slightly different wrong (sheltering a departed servant rather than inducing departure, though the two often appeared together in pleadings and treatises). Cross-searching all three terms is essential for comprehensive historical research.
Second, the action on the case was the procedural vehicle. Researchers using older digests organized by writ form rather than subject matter should look under "action on the case" or "case" rather than under employment or contract headings.
Third, the doctrinal underpinning — that a master held a quasi-property interest in the labor of a servant sufficient to support a tort action against third-party interferers — was the same foundation that later generated the broader tort of inducing breach of contract. Tracing forward from this term leads naturally to Lumley v. Gye (1853) and the modern tortious interference framework, even though that case is not typically indexed under this heading in historical dictionaries.
Fourth, context matters for who qualified as a "servant." At common law this included domestic servants, farm laborers, and apprentices bound by indenture. The master-servant relationship required sufficient formality or term to give the master a cognizable interest. Casual or at-will workers generated weaker or no claims, a distinction that becomes important when reading older decisions involving tradespeople or itinerant workers.
Historical Dictionary Support
The historical dictionaries on the Law Mind shelf treat this term briefly and uniformly. Both editions of Black's define it in a single sentence — an injury giving rise to an action on the case — without elaborating on elements, defenses, or historical development. This brevity is consistent with a term that functioned more as a cross-reference anchor than a developed doctrinal entry in the period those dictionaries targeted.
Rapalje and Lawrence provide the most substantive entry on the shelf, and it is notable chiefly for what it does: it places "seducing to leave service" and "seduction" (in the sexual sense) in immediate proximity, treating them as related in principle. The editorial note invoking volenti non fit injuria as the reason the seduced woman had no personal action is a reminder that these two uses of "seduction" shared a common theoretical structure — both involved a master's derivative claim for loss of services rather than a direct claim by the injured party.
Bouvier's redirection to ENTICE is the most practically useful signal in the historical sources: it reflects that "enticement" was the dominant framing in American practice, and researchers following Bouvier's index will find more material under that heading than under seduction terminology.
None of the shelf sources address the transition to tortious interference doctrine, the decline of the formal master-servant framework following labor law reform, or the abolition of the action in many jurisdictions by statute in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. That evolution must be traced through case law and legal history rather than these dictionary entries.
Jurisdictional Note
The action was well-established in English common law and carried into American jurisdictions, but its vitality varied considerably by state. A number of American courts declined to extend the action beyond domestic servants to cover commercial employees, limiting its reach. Modern jurisdictions have generally replaced or subsumed this cause of action within tortious interference with contractual relations, which requires different elements and applies more broadly.