History
  • No items yet
midpage
Ingram v. Southern Railway Co.
67 S.E. 926
N.C.
1910
Check Treatment
Per Curiam.

We find no error in the rulings of the court below. There is ample evidence tending to prove an emancipation by the parent of the son. It is well settled that if a contract of employment is made by a minor and approved and confirmed by his father, and undei such contract the son is to receive the wages earned by him, the father, by approving and confirming the agreement, in effect emancipates his son, as to wages earned by him under the contract, which becomes the property of the son, and not the property of the father. Party v. American Ship Windlass Co., 19 R. I., 461.

If a minor son contracts on his own account for his services with the knowledge of his father, who makes no objection thereto, there is an implied emancipation and an assent that the son shall be entitled to the earnings in his own right. Burdsall v. Waggoner, 4 Col., 261; Armstrong v. McDonald, 10 Barb., 300; Jenny v. Alden, 12 Mass., 375; Campbell v. Campbell, 11 N. J. Equity, 268; Taylor v. Welch, 36 N. Y. Supp., 592.

No error.

Case Details

Case Name: Ingram v. Southern Railway Co.
Court Name: Supreme Court of North Carolina
Date Published: Apr 20, 1910
Citation: 67 S.E. 926
Court Abbreviation: N.C.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.