Varney v. Young
Supreme Court of Vermont
Book, account. It appeared before the auditor that, in December, 1834, David E. Young, a minor son of the defendant, went into the western part of the state of New York and hired himself to the plaintiff, and continued to work for him till the 9th day of October, 1835, when he became sick, and the account in suit was for the expenses of his sickness.
Read the full summary
Book, account. It appeared before the auditor that, in December, 1834, David E. Young, a minor son of the defendant, went into the western part of the state of New York and hired himself to the plaintiff, and continued to work for him till the 9th day of October, 1835, when he became sick, and the account in suit was for the expenses of his sickness. On the 28th of May, 1835, the plaintiff and David E. Young made a contract, by which the latter agreed to serve the plaintiff as an apprentice till the age of twenty one years. This contract was, however, to be submitted to the defendant for his…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Bennett, J.
It is well settled law, that a father is not bound to pay for necessaries furnished to his minor son, unless an actual authority be proved, or the circumstances be sufficient to imply one. There must be proof of a contract express or implied, a prior authority, or a subsequent recognition of the claim. 2 Kent’s Com. 192. Chittyon Con. 117. Blackburn v. Mackay, 1 Car. & Payne’s R. 1 Huck v. Tollemache, id. 5. Wilkins v. Wells, 3 do. 231. In the case now before the court, the defendant, at the request of the plaintiff, had relinquished to the…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Jenney v. AldenMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1815
3Cited by5 opinions
- Ramsey v. RamseyIndiana Supreme Court · 1889
- Scott v. . BryanSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1875
- Kerwin v. WrightIndiana Supreme Court · 1877
- Sequin v. PetersonSupreme Court of Vermont · 1873
- Burlingame v. BurlingameNew York Supreme Court · 1827