Mead v. Billings
New York Supreme Court
IN ERROR, on certiorari, from a justice’s court. Billings brought an action of covenant against Mead, before the justice; and stated that on the 21st January, 1805, the defendant bound his son to the plaintiff as an apprentice, for 7 years, 9 months and 29 days, to learn the trade of a shoemaker, when the defendant knew, at the time, that his son would be of age one year before the expiration of that term, and the son, in fact, left the plaintiff one year before the term…
Read the full summary
IN ERROR, on certiorari, from a justice’s court. Billings brought an action of covenant against Mead, before the justice; and stated that on the 21st January, 1805, the defendant bound his son to the plaintiff as an apprentice, for 7 years, 9 months and 29 days, to learn the trade of a shoemaker, when the defendant knew, at the time, that his son would be of age one year before the expiration of that term, and the son, in fact, left the plaintiff one year before the term expired. The defendant pleaded that he was not bound by the covenant. The indenture of apprenticeship was dated the ■21st…
1Per curiam
The father in this case was bound for the son. It is not stated in the beginning, or introductory part of the indenture, who were the parties; but the indenture begins by stating that the son (naming him) puts himself, with the consent of his father, (naming him,) an apprentice to the plaintiff below, (naming him,) and after stating the duties and obligations of the apprentice, and the corresponding duties and obligations of the master, the indent*100ture concludes, that "for the true performance of all and singular the covenants and agreements aforesaid, the said parties bind themselves each…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Elliot v. SleeperSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1823
- Bull v. FollettNew York Supreme Court · 1825
- Bull v. FollettNew York Supreme Court · 1825