Behney v. R. Stoever Foundry Co.
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 186, Oct. T., 1905, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. Lebanon Co., Sept. T., 1903, No. 111, on verdict for plaintiff in case of Jerome Behney v. R. Stoever Foundry Co. Assumpsit for minor’s wages. Before Ehrgood, P. J. The opinion of the Superior Court states the case. Verdict and judgment for plaintiff for $44.76. Defendant appealed.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Henderson, J.,
The appellant accepted the plaintiff’s minor son to work in its shops according to certain rules and regulations which were signed by the parties as the agreement between them. The contract does not create an apprenticeship at common law or under our statute. There was no binding by indenture to service as an apprentice and this is necessary to create that relation : Reeves’ Domestic Relations, 484; Phelps v. Railway Co., 99 Pa. 108. It is provided, moreover, in the rules and regulations referred to that minors accepted to learn the trade are not to be considered as…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Phelps v. Pittsburgh, Cincinnati & St. Louis Railway Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1881
- Pennsylvania Railroad v. BostSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1883