Van Valkinburgh v. WatsonVan Valkinburgh v. Watson
-A.parent is- under a natural .obligation- tо furnish necessaries for his infant children; аnd if-the parent "nеgleet that duty, any оther person whо ^supplies such nеbessaries is deemed to have сonferred a benefit on the delinquent parent, for which the law raises an implied' promise to pay; on the part of the parent. But what is aсtually necessary will depend on - thе precise situation- of the infant, аnd- which the party .giving'1 thе-credit must be acquainted with; at his pеril. (Simpson v. Robertson, 1 Esp. Rep. 17., Ford v. Fothergill, Id. 211.) In the ease of Bainbridge v. Pickering, (2Wm. Black. Rep. 1325.,) Gould, J. says, with great propriety, “ No man shall takе upoti him to dictаte to a parent w-hat clothing the child shall wear, at what time they shall1 bе purchased; or of whom; all. that must bе leftto the discretion-of the fathеr or mother,” Where the infant is sub potestate parentis,- there -must be a clear аnd palpablе omission of duty, in that respect, on thе part of the рarent, in order to authorize any оther person to act for, and charge the1 expense to, the parent. In' this case, there is no ground to charge the father with any neglect of duty, in providing necessaries for his child, and the judgment must be reversed.
Judgment reversed.