Mohry v. Hoffman

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Mohry v. Hoffman

86 Pa. 358, 1878 Pa. LEXIS 73

DecidedMarch 18, 1878

StatusPublished

This text of 86 Pa. 358 (Mohry v. Hoffman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Mohry v. Hoffman, 86 Pa. 358, 1878 Pa. LEXIS 73 (Pa. 1878).

Pincite

Opinion

The judgment of the Supreme Court was entered,

Per Curiam.

— The parol contract set up in this case, unlike a legal indenture duly acknowledged, did not transfer the right of service of the plaintiff’s daughter beyond recall. There is no law providing for the arrest of the apprentice in such a case, and her return to the service of her master. While the father, here, might in a proper case, be held liable for a breach of contract, his parental right of control over his daughter is not transferred. The right of action for an injury such as this, per quod servitum, anvisit, therefore, remains, and especially where, as here, the son of the person with whom the contract is made, debauches her in his house. The form of action, or rather the ground of legal liability, is purely technical, while the real injury is the seduction; and as to this the plaintiff never gave his consent, or lost his control of his daughter.

Judgment affirmed.

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

The judgment of the Supreme Court was entered,

Per Curiam.

— The parol contract set up in this case, unlike a legal indenture duly acknowledged, did not transfer the right of service of the plaintiff’s daughter beyond recall. There is no law providing for the arrest of the apprentice in such a case, and her return to the service of her master. While the father, here, might in a proper case, be held liable for a breach of contract, his parental right of control over his daughter is not transferred. The right of action for an injury such as this, per quod servitum, anvisit, therefore, remains, and especially where, as here, the son of the person with whom the contract is made, debauches her in his house. The form of action, or rather the ground of legal liability, is purely technical, while the real injury is the seduction; and as to this the plaintiff never gave his consent, or lost his control of his daughter.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

86 Pa. 358, 1878 Pa. LEXIS 73, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mohry-v-hoffman-pa-1878.