Francis v. Felmit

• Decision Date: 31 December 1839
• Citation: 20 N.C. 637
• Parties: WILLIAM FRANCIS v. OTHO H. FELMIT.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

20 N.C. 637

WILLIAM FRANCIS

v.OTHO H. FELMIT.

SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA

DECEMBER TERM, 1839

Contract by Infant—Necessaries.

1. A contract made by an infant to work a certain specified time with a carpenter, upon the consideration of the latter's boarding and clothing him, and teaching him the trade, is not binding upon the infant, and he may, at any time, leave the service of the carpenter, provided he has not arrived at full age and confirmed the contract.

2. If an infant has been furnished with necessaries while working with a mechanic, to learn his trade, upon an action of assumpsit brought against the infant for the value of the necessaries, it is a good defense under the plea of non assumpsit that the defendant's services in work and labor were equal to or exceeded in value the necessaries furnished.

THIS was an action of assumpsit, in which the plaintiff declared in two counts: first, for a breach of contract; secondly, for the value of instruction in the art and mystery of the carpenter's trade, and for a set of bench tools, and board and clothing furnished to the defendant. Pleas, nonassumpsit and infancy. Replication to the latter plea, that the instruction given and the board, clothing, etc., furnished were necessaries.

Upon the trial at HAYWOOD, on the last circuit, before his Honor, Judge Pearson, the plaintiff proved that he was a carpenter, and had made with the defendant the following agreement, to wit: the defendant was to work for the plaintiff at the carpenter's trade three years, and the plaintiff was to teach him the trade, to board him, and furnish him with $90 worth of clothes during the time, and at the end of the time was to give him a suit of clothes and a set of bench tools. He then proved that the defendant had worked for him but two years and four months of the time, and had refused to work the remaining eight months, and that the value of the defendant's work for those eight months was at the rate of $25 per month, which he sought to recover under the first count. The plaintiff proved further that during the two years and four months the defendant was with him he had instructed the defendant in the carpenter's trade, had boarded him, and furnished him with clothes to the value of $114, and a set ofbench tools of the value of $15, which he sought to recover under the second count. The defendant proved that at the time he made the contract and set in to work with the plaintiff he was between seventeen and eighteen years of...