Prelipp v. Prelipp

Appellant contends that the court erred in improperly limiting the inquiry presented by the first question of the special verdict to the period of plaintiff’s employment after he had obtained his majority. It is contended by respondent that this question was correctly framed for the reason that the defendant stood in loco parentis to the plaintiff, and that consequently the defendant ■ liad a right to plaintiff’s services during his minority, and any agreement during minority would be nudum pactum.

The law applicable to situations such as this case presents has been set out in many decisions…