Peters v. Lord
Supreme Court of Connecticut
This was an action on the case, in two counts: the first, for enticing away the apprentice of the plaintiffs, Charles Thomas; the second, for receiving such apprentice into the defendant’s service, and harbouring and detaining him, after he had left the service of the plaintiffs.
Read the full summary
This was an action on the case, in two counts: the first, for enticing away the apprentice of the plaintiffs, Charles Thomas; the second, for receiving such apprentice into the defendant’s service, and harbouring and detaining him, after he had left the service of the plaintiffs. The cause was tried, on the general issue, before the county court of Litchfield county, December term, 1845. On the trial, it was admitted, that Thomas was a minor, at the time of committing the grievances complained of, and that no indentures had ever been executed ; and that the contracts of apprenticeship and…
1Opinion of the CourtEmjSWOrtb, J.
We see no objection to the charge of the *341court. A legal apprenticeship cannot exist at common law, without writing ; nor, m this state, without deed or signed by the father or guardian, with the assent of the minor, expressed in the indenture ; and when an apprenticeship is to continue for more than one year, we see not why the statute frauds does not require the contract to be in writing. Short ot a strictly legal apprenticeship, a parent, guardian or friend may undertake and be bound himself for a minor; but this does not make the minor an apprentice. In Nickerson v. Easton, 12 Pick, 112.…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Robinson v. WeeksSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1868
- Lally v. CantwellMissouri Court of Appeals · 1888
- Doane v. CovelSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1869
- Barton v. FordNew York Supreme Court · 1885