Lamb v. Taylor
| Decision Date | 16 March 1887 |
| Citation | 8 A. 760,67 Md. 85 |
| Parties | LAMB v. TAYLOR, SR. |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Baltimore city court.
Benjamin Kurtz, for appellant.
Alex. H. Hobbs, for appellee.
This was an action brought by the plaintiff, Taylor, against the defendant, Lamb, for the seduction of his daughter Rachel. The declaration is in the usual form, alleging loss of service, etc. The evidence shows that the daughter was over 21 years of age; that she was living, and always had lived with her father and mother, but from the age of 14 had been working during the day in the cotton-mills at Woodbury, returning to the house of her father at night; that she received her own wages, and out of them clothed herself, and paid her board to her mother, and sometimes assisted her mother in paying her rent; that the family consisted of the plaintiff and his wife and two daughters; that this daughter gave birth to a child at home, and was kept there about two months, and the doctor who attended her in her confinement had charged the bill to the plaintiff, which he had not paid. It was further proved by the daughter that she was seduced at home, and that, when not working in the mill, her father had no control over her, and that whatever services she rendered were entirely voluntary. The evidence relating to the service is as follows: The plaintiff says "that the said Rachel, after returning from the mill in the evening, would assist her mother in the work about the house, and when her mother was taken sick she made up her bed for her." The daughter herself says: "In the morning before going to work at the mill, and in the evening after her returning, she would assist her mother in her work about the house, and when her mother was taken sick she made up her bed for her." This is the evidence as to the services of the daughter.
It is well said by a learned author (Sutherland on Damages) that slight evidence is sufficient to establish the relation of master and servant, and that the allegation and proof on that point is almost an unmeaning formula,--an obeisance to a shadow of the past to reach the actual grievance. So, in the case of Mercer v. Walmsley, 5 Har. & J. 27, the court said: "Any slight service will be sufficient to raise the inference of fact that she was his servant." So, in Keller v. Donnelly, 5 Md. 211, the court said: "The slightest evidence will suffice to prove the relation of master and servant."
The evidence of the services rendered, so as to establish the merely technical relation of master and servant, is certainly in this case sufficient. According to her testimony, she daily did some of the ordinary woman's work about the house. There are many cases to be found where the action has been sustained where the evidence of the service was much less than we find in this record.
Nor does it matter that the daughter was over 21 years of age. If the daughter is living with her father, rendering services, that connection is sufficient, although she is over 21 years. Mercer v. Walmsley, 5 Har. & J. 27. It has been settled by this case, and many others both in England and in this country, that a father may maintain an action for the seduction of an adult daughter, provided she is living with him, and rendering him any service, however slight. This law we do not understand to be questioned; but it is insisted that these services must not be voluntary, and that the fact that the daughter was in service elsewhere will defeat the action. But the services of an adult daughter to the father must be voluntary, as he has no legal right to require them after her majority. It is immaterial whether the services so rendered by the child are paid for or not, or whether any special contract existed. Lipe v. Eisenlerd, 32 N.Y. 229; Badgley v. Decker, 44 Barb. 577.
The other question argued by the apellant, that because the daughter in this case was engaged in the cotton-mills, and paid her board at home, the plaintiff could not recover, is not tenable upon authority. It was said in Mercer v. Walmsley, above quoted, that where the daughter is over 21 years, and living with her father, that any slight act of service is sufficient to establish the relation of master and servant. In the common acceptation of the term, the place where the daughter boards and lodges is the place where she is said to live. She may work out by the day; but where she eats and sleeps is her home, and there she lives, more especially where that place is her father's house, which has always furnished her with shelter. But ample authority is not wanting on that point. The case of Rist v. Faux, 4 Best & S. 409,...
To continue reading
Request your trial