Ingram v. Southern Ry. Co

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
Writing for the CourtPER CURIAM
Citation152 N.C. 762,67 S.E. 926
Decision Date20 April 1910
PartiesINGRAM v. SOUTHERN RY. CO.

67 S.E. 926
152 N.C. 762

INGRAM
v.
SOUTHERN RY.
CO.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

April 20, 1910.


1. Parent and Child (§ 16*)—Emancipation of Child—Right to Wages.

Where a minor is employed with the approval of his father, and the contract contemplates that the son shall receive the wages earned by him, the agreement is, in effect, an emancipation of the son as to the wages earned under the contract which thereby belonged to the son.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Parent and Child, Cent. Dig. §§ 167, 171; Dec. Dig. § 16.*]

2. Parent and Child (§ 16*)—Services of Child—Emancipation.

Where a minor contracts on his own account for his services with the knowledge of his parent and without the parent's objection, there is an implied emancipation, entitling the son to his earnings in his own right.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Parent and Child, Cent. Dig. §§ 167, 171; Dec. Dig. § 16.*]

Appeal from Superior Court, Iredell County; Long, Judge.

Action by Giles Ingram against the Southern Railway Company for loss of services of plaintiff's son for two years preceding his majority because of the son's injury by defendant's alleged negligence. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed

These issues were submitted:

"(1) Was Grady Ingram injured by the negligence of the defendant as alleged in the complaint? Answer: Yes.

"(2) Was said Grady Ingram guilty of contributory negligence as alleged in the complaint? Answer: No.

"(3) What damage, if any, is plaintiff entitled to recover? Answer: No damage."

George W. Garland and Armfield & Turner, for appellant. L. C. Caldwell, for appellee.

PER CURIAM. We find no error in the rulings of the court below. There is ample evidence tending to prove an emancipation by the parent of the son. It is well settled that if a contract of employment is made by a minor and approved and confirmed by his father, and under such contract the son is to receive the wages earned by him, the father by approving and confirming the agreement in effect emancipates his son as to wages earned by him under the contract, which becomes the property of the son, and not...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 practice notes
  • Smith v. Simpson, No. 454
    • United States
    • North Carolina United States State Supreme Court of North Carolina
    • 11 Diciembre 1963
    ...v. Western Union Telegraph Co., 204 N.C. 136, 167 S.E. 575; Lowrie v. Oxendine, 153 N.C. 267, 69 S.E. 131; Ingram v. Southern Railroad, 152 N.C. 762, 67 S.E. With respect to emancipation and the purchase of an automobile, the facts in James v. James, 226 N.C. 399, 38 S.E.2d 168, are strikin......
  • Jolley v. Western Union Tel. Co, No. 515.
    • United States
    • North Carolina United States State Supreme Court of North Carolina
    • 8 Febrero 1933
    ...at the trial. The doctrine of implied emancipation is fully recognized in this state. Thus, in Ingram v.[167 S.E. 577] Southern R. Co., 152 N. C. 762, 67 S. E. 926, the court said: "It is well settled that if a contract of employment is made by a minor and approved and confirmed by his......
  • Lowrie v. Oxendine
    • United States
    • North Carolina United States State Supreme Court of North Carolina
    • 19 Octubre 1910
    ...had been emancipated by his father and permitted to work for himself and to receive the earnings of his labor. In Ingram v. Railway, 152 N. C. 762, 67 S. E. 926, we held that: "If a minor son contracts on his own account for his services with the knowledge of his father, who makes no o......
3 cases
  • Smith v. Simpson, No. 454
    • United States
    • North Carolina United States State Supreme Court of North Carolina
    • 11 Diciembre 1963
    ...v. Western Union Telegraph Co., 204 N.C. 136, 167 S.E. 575; Lowrie v. Oxendine, 153 N.C. 267, 69 S.E. 131; Ingram v. Southern Railroad, 152 N.C. 762, 67 S.E. With respect to emancipation and the purchase of an automobile, the facts in James v. James, 226 N.C. 399, 38 S.E.2d 168, are strikin......
  • Jolley v. Western Union Tel. Co, No. 515.
    • United States
    • North Carolina United States State Supreme Court of North Carolina
    • 8 Febrero 1933
    ...at the trial. The doctrine of implied emancipation is fully recognized in this state. Thus, in Ingram v.[167 S.E. 577] Southern R. Co., 152 N. C. 762, 67 S. E. 926, the court said: "It is well settled that if a contract of employment is made by a minor and approved and confirmed by his......
  • Lowrie v. Oxendine
    • United States
    • North Carolina United States State Supreme Court of North Carolina
    • 19 Octubre 1910
    ...had been emancipated by his father and permitted to work for himself and to receive the earnings of his labor. In Ingram v. Railway, 152 N. C. 762, 67 S. E. 926, we held that: "If a minor son contracts on his own account for his services with the knowledge of his father, who makes no o......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT