Chandler v. Deaton

37 Tex. 406
CourtTexas Supreme Court
DecidedJuly 1, 1873
StatusPublished
Cited by17 cases

This text of 37 Tex. 406 (Chandler v. Deaton) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Texas Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Chandler v. Deaton, 37 Tex. 406 (Tex. 1873).

Opinion

Walker, J.

It does not appear from the statement of facts in this case, except by inference, who shot the mules of the appellee; but it appears to be conceded by attorneys that they were shot by one or both of the appellant’s sons, who were minors at the time of the shooting. As a general rule of law, minors are liable for their own torts. The father is not liable in this action as the case is presented to us. There is no presumption growing out of the domestic relation of parent and child, which would hold the father responsible for a crime or a tort committed by his minor child, unless it be shown that the father is himself in some way implicated as principal or accessory; and there is no proof of anything of' this bind in this case. Had it been shown on the trial that Chandler counseled or abetted his sons in shooting Deaton’s mules, he might have been held responsible for the act; or, if he concealed the offense, knowing it to have been committed, he might be liable in a criminal prosecution ; and there may be some doubt whether concealing a knowledge of the act might not be so far regarded as approbating and adopting the act of his sons as to make him liable in damages. This question, however, does not arise in the case on the record before us, and we will not be understood as deciding it. The judgment of the District Court is reversed, and the cause remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

In Re DM
191 S.W.3d 381 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2006)
In re D. M.
191 S.W.3d 381 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2006)
in the Matter of D. M.
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2006
Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion
Texas Attorney General Reports, 1995
Opinion No.
Texas Attorney General Reports, 1995
Brown v. Dellinger
355 S.W.2d 742 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1962)
Heidingsfelder v. Rodgers
96 S.W.2d 147 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1936)
Cook v. Mann
40 S.W.2d 72 (Texas Commission of Appeals, 1931)
Mann v. Cook
23 S.W.2d 860 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1929)
Miller v. Pettigrew
10 S.W.2d 168 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1928)
Miller v. Peck
258 S.W. 887 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1924)
Wallace v. Squires
186 N.C. 339 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1923)
Lessoff v. Gordon
124 S.W. 182 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1910)
O'Leary v. Brooks Elevator Co.
41 L.R.A. 677 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 1898)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
37 Tex. 406, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chandler-v-deaton-tex-1873.