Sinklear v. Emert

18 Ill. 63
CourtIllinois Supreme Court
DecidedDecember 15, 1856
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 18 Ill. 63 (Sinklear v. Emert) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Illinois Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Sinklear v. Emert, 18 Ill. 63 (Ill. 1856).

Opinion

Caton, J.

Here was a special agreement, made by the father of the infant, to pay for his board. In pursuance of that agreement, the plaintiff below boarded and took care of the infant two years; and now, on the failure of the father to pay for it, he sues the child, for the pin-pose of recovering out of the infant’s estate. There can be no pretense for charging the infant, or his estate, with the amount. 1 The credit was given to the father, and not to the infant. It is not like the case of .necessaries, furnished an infant on his credit. Even waiving the question of infancy, and the father alone would be liable, on this special contract, for boarding and taking care of the defendant below.

The judgment must be reversed and remanded.

Judgment reversed.

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

Related

Estate of Woodring v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance
389 N.E.2d 211 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1979)
Logan Furniture Mart, Inc. v. Davis
289 N.E.2d 228 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1972)
Emery-Bird-Thayer Dry Goods Co. v. Coomer
87 Mo. App. 404 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1901)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
18 Ill. 63, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sinklear-v-emert-ill-1856.