Ingram v. Southern Railway Co.
Giles Ingram v. Southern Railway Company.
Headnotes
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam.
We find no error in the rulings of the court below. There is ample evidence tending to prove an emancipation by the parent of the son. It is well settled that if a contract of employment is made by a minor and approved and confirmed by his father, and undei such contract the son is to receive the wages earned by him, the father, by approving and confirming the agreement, in effect emancipates his son, as to wages earned by him under the contract, which becomes the property of the son, and not the property of the father.
Party v. American Ship Windlass Co., 19 R. I., 461.
If a minor son contracts on his own account for his services with the knowledge of his father, who makes no objection thereto, there is an implied emancipation and an assent that the son shall be entitled to the earnings in his own right.
Burdsall v. Waggoner, 4 Col., 261 ;
Armstrong v. McDonald, 10 Barb., 300 ;
Jenny v. Alden, 12 Mass., 375 ;
Campbell v. Campbell, 11 N. J. Equity, 268;
Taylor v. Welch, 36 N. Y. Supp., 592 .
No error.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 3 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.