Chilson v. Philips
Supreme Court of Vermont
This was a writ of error to reverse a judgment of the County Court in an action of assumpsit in favor oí Philips against Chilson, declaring for work and labor performed by a minor son of the plaintiff. The general issue was pleaded and tried by the court by consent of parties.
Read the full summary
This was a writ of error to reverse a judgment of the County Court in an action of assumpsit in favor oí Philips against Chilson, declaring for work and labor performed by a minor son of the plaintiff. The general issue was pleaded and tried by the court by consent of parties. The issue being found in favor of the plaintiff below, the defendant tendered and was allowed to file his bill of exceptions upon which this writ of error was brought.— The exceptions were as follows : “ In this cause after issue joined the plaintiff in support of the is- “ sue on his part,gave in evidence in…
1Opinion of the CourtRoyce, J.
The plaintiff below declared in general indebitatus assumpsit for wbrk and labor performed by his infant son. The proof of *43ike .service' .established -an -apparent .right (to -recover ¿ ,the earnings -of the son being ¡the property >of the father.. ;It is now to be determined whether the -evidence -offered ,and rejected in the=court below ¡had a -legal ¡tendency <to tdefeat .the -right .of.recovery,For .the present purpose ithe facts offered;to -be .ehow-n-must-be - taken to-exist.Weare.there-feane to underslandthat .the - service sued for was in -factperformed -undera special…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Lackman v. WoodCalifornia Supreme Court · 1864
- Sequin v. PetersonSupreme Court of Vermont · 1873
- Burlingame v. BurlingameNew York Supreme Court · 1827