Weeks v. Merrow

Weeks versus Merrow

Weeks v. Merrow, 40 Me. 151 (1855)

Court: Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · State Highest Courts
Decided: July 1, 1855
Judges: Rice
Citations: 40 Me. 151

Cited by 8

Headnotes

A minor, who voluntarily abandons his father’s house, without any fault upon the part of the latter, carries with him no credit on his father’s account, not even for necessaries.

Summary

On Pacts Agreed. Assumpsit, for board of defendant’s minor son. The parties lived in different towns and had no acquaintance with each other. Defendant’s minor son loft his home, ample provision being there made for him, without his father’s consent or knowledge, and worked elsewhere. He subsequently boarded with plaintiff, whose business it was to accommodate boarders, to recover pay for which this suit was brought. If, under such circumstances, the father is liable for the board of his minor son, a default is to be entered; otherwise, a nonsuit. cited Angel v. McLellan, 16 Mass. 28; Story on Contracts § § 57, 58. Raymond v. Loyl, 10 Barbour, 483 ; 2 Kent’s Cam. 193.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Rice

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Rice, J.

Where a child leaves his parent’s house, voluntai’ily, for the purpose of seeking his fortune in the world, or to avoid the discipline and restraint so necessary for the *152 due regulation of families, he carries with him no credit; and the parent is under no obligation to pay for his support Angel v. McLellan, 16 Mass. 28 .

This doctrine is well sustained by authority, and though, at times, it may operate with apparent severity, is based upon sound principles. To permit a minor, at his election, to depart from his parent’s house, with power to charge that parent with Ms support, would tend to the destruction of all parental authority, and invert the order of family government.

If a minor is forced out into the world by the cruelty or improper conduct of the parent, and' is in want of necessaries, such necessaries may be supplied, and the value thereof collected of the parent, on an implied contract. Such, however, does not seem to be the case at bar.

According to the agreement a nonsuit must be entered.

Plaintiff nonsuit.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 8 cases

View all citing references →

Relies on it most ⓘ

Milne v. Milne556 A.2d 854 (Pa. 1989)
Brosius v. Barker136 S.W. 18 (Mo. Ct. App. 1911)
Maschauer v. Downs289 F. 540 (D.C. Cir. 1923)
Hyde v. Leisenring65 N.W. 536 (Mich. 1895)
Johnson v. Coleman69 So. 318 (Ala. Ct. App. 1915)
State, ex rel. R.R. v. C.R.797 P.2d 459 (Utah Ct. App. 1990)

Most recent

State in Interest of RR v. CR797 P.2d 459 (Utah Ct. App. 1990)
State, ex rel. R.R. v. C.R.797 P.2d 459 (Utah Ct. App. 1990)
Milne v. Milne556 A.2d 854 (Pa. 1989)
Maschauer v. Downs289 F. 540 (D.C. Cir. 1923)
Johnson v. Coleman69 So. 318 (Ala. Ct. App. 1915)
Brosius v. Barker136 S.W. 18 (Mo. Ct. App. 1911)

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.

Authorities cited 1

Depth	Case	Cited by
	Angel v. McLellan, 16 Mass. 28 (1819)	25

`/`	Focus the search box
`j` `k`	Next / previous result
`Enter`	Open the selected result
`x`	Add / remove the selected result from the download list
`n` `p`	Next / previous search term in a case
`c`	Copy the citation of the current case
`+` `−`	Larger / smaller reading text
`?`	Show this list