McGunigal v. Mong
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
In error from the Common Ple.as of Huntingdon. May 20. The plaintiff brought this action on the, case against the executors of Mong, to whom he had been bound an apprentice, for not teaching him the trade, and giving him schooling according to the agreement.
Read the full summary
In error from the Common Ple.as of Huntingdon. May 20. The plaintiff brought this action on the, case against the executors of Mong, to whom he had been bound an apprentice, for not teaching him the trade, and giving him schooling according to the agreement. On the trial, the plaintiff gave in evidence an indenture sealed by his mother (he being illegitimate) and Mong, by which the plaintiff was bound for fourteen years; the master covenanting to teach him the trade of a tanner, and have him taught to read and write. The plaintiff was not a party to this instrument, which was acknowledged…
1Opinion of the CourtBurnside, J.
Pauper children, whether legitimate or not, are inseparable from the mother within the years of nurture; *271that is, under the age of seven years. (41 Law Lib. 64; McPherson on Infants, 67.) Even the putative father has no right to the custody; until the child is seven years of age it shall stay with the mother for nurture; 2 Vent. 210; 2 Wilson, 126; 2 Bouvier’s Bac. Ab. 97. In The King v. Soper, 5 Term Bep. 278, Lord Kenyon would not permit the question to be argued, but decided that the putative father had no right to the custody, and ordered the child into the keeping of the mother. This is…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Commonwealth ex rel. Crispin v. JonesSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1817
- Elliot v. ElliotSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1812
- First National Bank v. PritchardCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1884
- Commonwealth v. FeeSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1820
- Overseers of the Poor v. Overseers of the PoorSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1820
3Cited by1 opinion
- Latney's AppealSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1941