Clinton v. Laning

• Citation: 61 Mich. 355,28 N.W. 125
• Court: Supreme Court of Michigan
• Decision Date: 06 May 1886
• Parties: CLINTON v. LANING and others.

28 N.W. 125

61 Mich. 355

CLINTON v. LANING and others.

Supreme Court of Michigan

May 6, 1886

Error to Genesee.

H.C Riggs and Geer & Williams, for plaintiff.

Clarence Tinker and Long & Gold, for defendants and appellants.

CAMPBELL, C.J.

This action was brought by a father, in advanced years, to recover damages from the defendants for his loss by being compelled to support a grown-up son who, being given to drinking became grossly drunk at defendant's tavern, and on his way home had his feet and a hand badly frozen, so as to render him to a great degree helpless. The young man possesses no estate, and is therefore dependent, and in law a pauper. The father is well off, and has taken care of his son in the liberal way in which prodigal children are apt to be treated.

Two main, and some subordinate, questions are presented by the record. It is claimed no right of action accrues under circumstances such as exist here until the father has been required, by legal process, to contribute in some fixed way to his son's support. It is also claimed that the verdict was allowed to be rendered on a wrong basis.

It is not seriously claimed that any action lies in this case out of the mere relation of parent and child. The son was not a minor, and the father was in no way injured by loss of his earnings, or deprived of any reliance for his own support. If an action lies at all, it is upon the ground that plaintiff has, in some way, been "injured in his property" by the casualty for which defendants are sought to be made responsible. The statutes do not make a father liable for his son's support to any extent after majority, unless he has become subject to the condition of a pauper, and liable to be a public burden. In such a case, if able to do so, the law makes him responsible to such an extent as may be determined on a proper investigation. As the ability here is admitted and the need of support is also admitted, there can be no doubt that plaintiff, if refusing, would be compelled to make necessary provision. The only question that would arise in case of his refusal would be as to the terms and manner of his contribution. There is, no doubt, some difficulty in substituting a jury for the proper local authorities in getting at the proper estimate of expense. But we think the law does not require a father to attempt to turn over his son to the custody of the superintendents of the poor before he can be regarded as under a duty of maintenance. The law requires the parent, if able, to maintain the son "in such manner as shall be approved by the directors of the poor of the township where such poor person may be." How.St. c. 41 � 1. It is only on failure to do so that any order becomes necessary, as provided by the subsequent sections. We think that the voluntary assumption of this duty may fairly be regarded as performing a legal obligation, and that...