Crombie v. McGrath
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Contract upon a promissory note for $129, dated April 22, 1882, payable to the plaintiff or order, and signed by the defendant. Answer, want of consideration.
Read the full summary
Contract upon a promissory note for $129, dated April 22, 1882, payable to the plaintiff or order, and signed by the defendant. Answer, want of consideration. Trial in the Superior Court, before Mason, J., who allowed a bill of exceptions, in substance as follows: On April 16, 1880, the defendant, the defendant’s son, and one John L. Connolly entered into a written agreement, not under seal, by which the defendant bound his son, with his assent, to Connolly, until March 1, 1883, to learn the art of wood-engraving, and Connolly agreed to teach him the art, and to pay him a certain sum weekly…
1Opinion of the CourtW. Allen, J.
The only question is, whether there was any evidence of consideration for the note declared on.
The contract, though not a statutory indenture of apprenticeship, was valid between the parties to this suit; and, under it, the plaintiff had a right, against the defendant, to the services of his minor son. Day v. Everett, 7 Mass. 145. Lobdell v. Allen, 9 Gray, 377, 381. Caden v. Farwell, 98 Mass. 137. The release of the right to such service was therefore a sufficient consideration.
Besides, the son was in the actual service of the plaintiff, and the condition of his leaving that service and…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Day v. EverettMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1810
- Caden v. FarwellMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1867
3Cited by1 opinion
- Putnam Machine Co. v. MustakangasMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1920