Farrell v. Farrell

8 Del. 633

• Court: Superior Court of Delaware
• Decided: July 5, 1868
• Status: Published

Opinion

The Court, Gilpin, G. J., charged the jury.

Whilst

it is the duty of a father to nourish, support and maintain his minor child, it is equally the duty of such child to obey and serve his father, in all that may be reasonably required of him. These duties are reciprocally binding upon the parties ; support and maintenance on the one hand and obedience and service on the other, the one being dependant upon, and compensatory of the other. And, although the general principle is clear and unquestioned, that the father is entitled to the services of his minor child, and to all that such child earns by his labor, yet, it seems to be equally clear, that, as the right of the father to the services of his child is founded upon his duty to support and maintain his child, if he should fail, neglect, or refuse to observe and perform this duty, his right to the services of his child should cease to exist. And such we hold to be the law. I speak here of the civil rights and duties or obligations which belong to the relation of parent and child. Human laws deal with these alone. There are, undoubtedly, other and higher duties of a moral and religious nature growing out of this relation, which are beyond the cognizance of any human tribunal, and with which you of course, have nothing to do, so far as this case is concerned.

If, therefore, the defendant neglected, or refused to support and maintain his son, or denied him a home, or discarded or "abandoned him, so that he was forced to labor abroad to procure a living for himself, he is not upon any principle of law or justice entitled to the earnings of his son; because under such circumstances, the law will imply that the father has emancipated, or freed the son from his service, and conceded to him the right to enjoy the fruits and profits of his own labor. A father may also voluntarily and expressly emancipate his minor son, as by authorizing him to go out and labor for his own benefit.

Or emancipation may be implied from the conduct and' relations of the parties, that is to say, the emancipation, or freedom of the son to labor lor his own living, may be inferred from the fact that his father has knowingly permitted him to enter into contracts and manage business for himself, or on his own account for a considerable length of time. Or when a minor son makes a contract for his services on his own account and the father knows of it and makes no objection, there is, it seems, an implied assent on his part that the son shall have his own earnings. Armstrong y. McDonall, 10 Barb. 300. If a father emancipates his minor child, and such child by industry, accumulates money, the money is his money and not his fathers. And if the father receives money from such minor child, not as due to or belongingto himself, butreceives it and recognizes it as money belonging to his child, he cannot afterward legally claim or hold it as his own, on the ground of its being the fruits or profits of such child’s labor; and more especially, if it was understood between them that the father received it, either to invest, or hold it for his child’s benefit. t

It has been contended by the counsel for the defendant that if. any money was paid to him by his son, it was paid voluntarily, and that as the money was the earning of a minor child, it cannot now be recovered back. In other words, that there is no legal obligation resting on the father to restore the money to his son. How, this depends upon the question as to whether the father by his conduct toward his son emancipated him from his service. If he emancipated him, then the money earned by the son belonged to the son; and the latter has just as much right to maintain this action, and to recover whatever amount is due to him, as any other person would have to recover back money which he had deposited in the hands of another.

Again, it has been contended that if any money was sent by the plaintiff to the defendant, it was to he invested in real estate, and was so invested in the name of the defendant, and that under such circumstances there would be but a resulting trust in favor of the son which can only be enforced in a court of equity; and that, therefore, the plaintiff has no remedy here in a court of law. Our answer to this assumed ground of defence is, that there is no evidence in this case tending to raise such a question. If I deposit money with another to be invested for me in the purchase of real estate, it certainly cannot be presumed that I intended my agent should take title to such real estate in his own name, or that he should appropriate the money, or the real estate to his own use. If he does not invest the money at all, or invests it in his own name for his own use, or having invested it in real estate in his own name afterward sold the real estate and appropriated the proceds to his own use, I have a right to recover the money which I deposited with him in an action of assumpsit.

Did the father, either expressly, impliedly,or inferentially by his conduct toward him, emancipate him from his service? If you shall be satisfied from the evidence that he did emancipate him, then we say to you that the son was and is entitled to his own earnings. If you shall be of opinion from the evidence that the son was emancipated, then the remaining question will be whether he placed or deposited money, being his earnings, in his father’s hands, and the amount which he so deposited. The burden of proof is on the plaintiff to show the fact of emancipation and the amount deposited with or in the hands of the defendant. If the plaintiff was emancipated, he is entitled to recover all that he deposited with the defendant, with interest. If he was not emancipated, he is not entitled to recover any thing.

The plaintiff had a verdict for $1,104.70