Hunt v. Thompson

• Decision Date: 31 December 1841
• Citation: 3 Scam. 179,36 Am.Dec. 538,1841 WL 3286,4 Ill. 179
• Parties: Samuel Hunt, appellant,v.John Thompson, appellee.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

3 Scam. 179

4 Ill. 179

1841 WL 3286 (Ill.)

36 Am.Dec. 538

Samuel Hunt, appellant,

v.John Thompson, appellee.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

December Term, 1841.

Appeal from Morgan.

A parent is under a natural obligation to provide for the maintenance of his infant child, but there is no rule of municipal law enforcing this duty.

An express promise, or circumstances from which a promise by the father can be inferred are indispensably necessary to bind the parent for necessaries furnished his infant child, by a third person.

A child, by voluntarily abandoning the home of his father, or remaining abroad, against his consent, forfeits his claim to support, and those who credit him, even for necessaries, must look to him for payment; and it is no excuse that such persons were not aware that the child was acting contrary to the will of the father; for it is the duty of those who give credit to an infant to know his precise situation, at their peril.

Semble, That where by the command of the father, his son remains abroad until additional clothes become necessary, and he neglects to provide them, an authority in one who should supply his omission of duty, might well be presumed.

This cause was heard in the Morgan Circuit Court, before the Hon. Wm. Thomas, without a jury, at the July term, 1840. Judgment was rendered for the defendant, and the plaintiff appealed to this court.

J. Berdan and M. McConnel, for the appellant.

W. Brown, for the appellee.

WILSON, Chief Justice, delivered the opinion of the (old) court:

This is an action against the father, for clothes furnished his infant son, under the following circumstances, as appears from the bill of exceptions. In the fall of 1838, the son, with the approbation of his father, who resided in Kentucky, came to Jacksonville, in this state, upon a visit to his friends in that vicinity. He was suitably provided with apparel for the occasion; but before the next spring, to which time he prolonged his visit, his clothes became considerably worn, and some of them too small, and the plaintiff made him a suit of clothes, for which this action is brought. It also appears that the youth did not live with his friends, but took boarding at a tavern in Jacksonville, and contracted this and other debts, which his friends considered extravagant, and of which they informed his father, who immediately gave notice, by letters, that he would not pay his son's debts; but it does not appear that the plaintiff in the court below had notice of this fact. Heretofore the father had always furnished his son with clothes suitable to his circumstances, which were easy.

Upon this evidence the case was submitted to the decision of the court, without the intervention of a jury, and judgment was given against the plaintiff; to reverse which this appeal is prosecuted.

That a parent is under an obligation to provide for the maintenance of his infant children, is a principle of natural law; and it is upon this natural obligation alone that the duty of a parent to provide his infant children with the necessaries of life rests; for there is no rule of municipal law enforcing this duty. The claim of the wife upon the husband, for necessaries suitable to his rank and fortune, is recognized by the principles of the common law, and by statute. A like claim, to some extent, may be enforced in favor of indigent and infirm parents, and other relatives, against children, etc., in many cases; but, as a general rule, the obligation of a parent to provide for his offspring is left to the natural and inextinguishable affection which Providence has implanted in...