Thе plaintiff, a widow, is the mother of the defendant, also a widow; and the purpose of this action is to obtain a judgment that defendаnt pay to plaintiff for her permanent support the amount of one hundred dollars per month, and also one hundred dollars to be paid forthwith for plaintiff’s immediate use. It is averred in the complaint that plaintiff is seventy-seven years old. is without any means *141 of subsistеnce, and, by reason of her age and physical condition, is unable to maintain herself by work; that defendant has ability to suppоrt her; and that one hundred dollars a month is a reasonable sum to be allowed her for her maintenance. In the answer of the dеfendant the material averments of the complaint are denied, and it is averred that plaintiff has other children able to support her, and that, when defendant was about six years old plaintiff abandoned her and gave her to her aunt, Bridget Duffy, and her husband, and аgreed that her aunt should rear and support her, and that defendant’s obligations as a child should be due to her said aunt; and that since then plaintiff would have nothing more to do with defendant, and that defendant was reared and supported by her aunt, and that defendant now supports her said aunt. The court found that plaintiff was destitute and unable to maintain herself by work; that defendant is able to supрort her; that plaintiff did not abandon defendant as alleged in the answer; that sixty dollars a month is a reasonable amount for plаintiff’s maintenance, and that twenty dollars a month is a reasonable proportion thereof to be paid plaintiff by defendant. Judgment was rendered in favor of plaintiff against defendant for $143.30 for her support from the commencement of the action until thе date of the judgment, and that thereafter defendant pay to plaintiff twenty dollars on the 15th of each month until further order of the сourt. From this judgment defendant appeals.
Appellant contends that the material findings of the court are not supported by thе evidence, but, under our views of the case, this contention need not be discussed. While some writers speak of the “natural obligation” of a child to support a parent, it is clear that at common law there was no legal obligation on the part of the child to do so; that such obligation depends entirely upon statutory provisions; and that the procedure provided by statute for the enforcement of the obligation must be pursued. In Schouler on Domestic Relations (see. 265) it is said that the following is “a well-sеttled rule at the common law: Namely, that there is no legal obligation resting upon a child to support a parent; that, while thе parent is bound to supply necessaries to an infant child, an adult child, in the absence of positive statute, or
*142
a legal .contract on his own part, is not bound to supply-necessaries to his aged parent.” In
Edwards and Wife
v. Davis,
The judgment appealed from is reversed.
Henshaw, J., and Lorigan, J., concurred.