Breuer v. Dowden
| Citation | 207 Ky. 12 |
| Parties | Breuer v. Dowden. |
| Decision Date | 27 January 1925 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court (Kentucky) |
1. Parent and Child — Liability of Parent for Debts of Adult Child Stated. — Parent is not liable for debts of his adult child in absence of statute, unless child is incapable of supporting himself, and incapacity arising after attaining able majority is not enough to subject parent to such liability; but if child at time of attaining majority is incapacitated to earn living for himself, and is at that time living in parent's home as member of household, parent is liable for necessaries furnished him.
2. Parent and Child — Father's Liability for Debts of Adult Daughter Held to Terminate on Her Arrival at Age of 21 Years. — Father's liability for debts of his adult daughter, even for necessaries, terminated on her arrival at the age of 21 years, in absence of evidence that she was then incapacitated to earn her own living, and having once terminated could not be revived even though she afterwards became incapacitated while continuing as member of his household.
3. Parent and Child — Evidence Held to Show that Medical Services Were Rendered to Daughter on Her Credit. — Evidence that physician was engaged by adult daughter without knowledge or consent of father, and that first bill for services was made out and forwarded to her, held to show that services were rendered to daughter upon her credit, and that credit was not extended to the father.
4. Husband and Wife — Wife Held to have no Authority as Husband's Agent to Engage Medical Services for Adult Daughter. — Wife had no authority as agent for her husband to engage a physician to perform services for her adult daughter, where wife was estranged from husband, though living in the same house, and he did not authorize her to engage physician, or consent for him to be so engaged, or promise to pay for the services.
Appeal from Jefferson Circuit Court
ISAAC SHERMAN for appellant.
JOSEPH S. LAURENT for appellee.
Reversing.
This appeal presents the question whether the parent is liable for necessaries furnished his adult daughter, living in his home as a member of the family, at a time she is sick and unable to earn her living. The evidence shows that Emily Breuer is the daughter of appellant and that she was living in the home with her father and mother in Louisville as a member of the family when she engaged appellee, Dr. Dowden, to make a diagnosis of her physical ailments and to give her treatment therefor. She was at the time about twenty-three or twenty-four years of age but had never had employment or earned her living. She was under the care of the physician for about eight (8) months. Of this time she spent six weeks in a hospital away from her father's home. She was suffering from some nervous trouble, so she states, but she was not confined to her bed or room except while at the hospital and then for the purpose of treatment. At the time she gave her deposition in this case she had been married for some time, and was then twenty-six years of age, living with her husband in Atlanta. The evidence shows she and her father, appellant, were not on friendly terms, she never speaking to him except when it was absolutely necessary. Her mother was also estranged from her father, although they lived in the same house. There was little or no conversation between them.
The daughter and mother went to the doctor's office at the time his services were engaged. They gave a history of her case, but there was nothing said about who would pay the bill or the amount to be charged. In fact, nothing appears to indicate that the mother engaged the physician. The doctor never called on the daughter at the parental residence, and the father never knew of the employment of appellee, doctor, until long after most of the services had been rendered. He did not authorize or direct his daughter or wife to engage the physician or consent for him to be so engaged, or promise or agree, either directly or indirectly, to pay for the services. If the father is liable for the services of the physician it must be on the implied promise which the law raises against the father, to provide the members of the household, of which he is the head, with necessities, and which in some cases has been extended to adult children.
Appellee insists that the law imposes a duty on the parent to support his adult dependent child who has remained a member of the household because incapable of providing his own means of livelihood. In support of this proposition appellee cites the case of Crane v. Malone, 130 Ky. 125, where we said:
See also Overseers of the Poor of Alexandria v. Overseers of the Poor of Bethelehem (1835), 16 N.J.L. 119; Brown v. Ramsey, N.J.L. 117; Poor Overseers of Greeg Township v. Poor Overseers of New Berlin, 8 Cent. Rep. (Pa.) 528; Rowell v. Town of Vershire, 62 Vt. 405; 8 L. R.A. 708; Bailey v. Penick, 10 Ky. L. Rep. 239; Schultz v. Western Farm Tractor Co. (Wash. 1920), 190 Pac. 1007.
Appellee also insists that the wife, who went with the daughter to call on the physician at the time he was engaged and treatment was undertaken, was the agent of the husband and had power and authority to bind him for the services rendered her daughter on the theory as expressed in Mecham...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bartley v. Commonwealth
...weekly), by early in the twentieth century, at least, our courts had recognized such a duty in some circumstances. Breuer v. Dowden, 207 Ky. 12, 268 S.W. 541 (1925) (citing Crain v. Mallone, 130 Ky. 125, 113 S.W. 67 (1908)). Breaches of a parent's duty resulting in a child's death could sub......