Lucas v. Maryland Drydock Co.

• Decision Date: 29 April 1943
• Docket Number: 22.
• Citation: 31 A.2d 637,182 Md. 54
• Parties: LUCAS et ux. v. MARYLAND DRYDOCK CO.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

31 A.2d 637

182 Md. 54

LUCAS et ux. v. MARYLAND DRYDOCK CO.

No. 22.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

April 29, 1943

Appeal from Court of Common Pleas of Baltimore City; Samuel K Dennis, Judge.

Suit by Harry F. Lucas and his wife against the Maryland Drydock Company, a body corporate, for services rendered by plaintiffs' minor son during the term of his employment by defendant. Trial before the court without a jury resulted in a judgment for defendant, and plaintiffs appeal.

Judgment affirmed.

Arthur R. Padgett, of Baltimore, for appellants.

William D. Macmillan, of Baltimore (Semmes, Bowen & Semmes, of Baltimore, on the brief), for appellee.

Before SLOAN, C.J., and DELAPLAINE, COLLINS, MARBURY, GRASON MELVIN, and ADAMS, JJ.

COLLINS Judge.

Frank H. Lucas, the son of Harry F. Lucas and Ruth Lucas, his wife eighteen years of age, obtained a position with the Maryland Drydock Company on June 16, 1942, for wages of about $40 a week. Prior to that time he had been living at the home of his father and mother in Baltimore City and had started his summer vacation, having completed three years in high school. The father, Frank H. Lucas, on June 27, 1942, wrote a letter to the Maryland Drydock Company stating that his son had just been promoted to the fourth year in high school, and was working at its plant until the opening of school in September; that he had taken the position without authority from the father. He asked the Drydock Company to terminate the services of his son immediately and to hold whatever earnings were due him until further authority. He stated that his son was a minor, eighteen years of age, and had drawn one pay and had failed to report to his home. To this letter the Maryland Drydock Company replied to Harry F. Lucas, on July 2, 1942, that the action requested in his letter could not be taken.

On July 28, 1942, the said Harry F. Lucas and Ruth Lucas, appellants here, entered suit in the Court of Common Pleas of Baltimore City against The Maryland Drydock Company, a body corporate, in the amount of $500 for the services rendered by their son Frank H. Lucas during the term of his employment. After a trial before the Court, without a jury, a judgment was rendered for the defendant for costs. An appeal is taken to this Court from that judgment by virtue of General Rules of Practice and Procedure 111, Trials, Rule 9(c), effective September 1, 1941. This rule provides that this Court may review upon both the law and the evidence, but the judgment of the trial Court shall not be set aside on the evidence, unless clearly erroneous, and due regard shall be given to the opportunity of the trial Court to judge of the credibility of the witnesses, and is heard according to equity practice. Sothoron v. West, 180 Md. 539, 26 A.2d 16.

In addition to the facts above set forth, the testimony shows that Frank H. Lucas wanted to go to work during vacation and his father sent him to two or three personel managers, but that Frank did not want these positions. The boy finally obtained the position with the appellee on June 16, 1942. He brought his first pay home on June 26th and neither his father nor mother were at home, but the boy found a note from his father directing him to leave his pay there and he would see him later. The boy put $5.50 on the desk to repay him for car fare and lunch money and left a note that he would see him later about the rest of the money. The father arrived home between 12:30 and 1:00 A.M., found the $5.50 and the note, went up to his son's room, woke him up, and argued with the boy about the money. The father says that Frank wanted to handle the money, and said his father would have to like it. Frank says he offered to pay $10 a week board, open a bank account, and handle the money as he wanted to get in the habit of being conservative. The father then says he slapped the boy, while Frank says his father choked him, and his cousin says that she saw bruises and red marks on his neck the next day. Frank then left the house in the rain to look for his mother who was working at Towson in the Bendix plant. He returned home wet, and the next morning with some of his clothes moved to the home of his cousin, a Mrs. Mary Bulko, on Saturday, June 27th, which is the day on which the father wrote the aforesaid letter to the appellee. On the Thursday following the Saturday when his son left home, his father went to Mrs. Bulko's home and he says that he told her if the boy was not home the next morning that he would take action. Mrs. Bulko says that he threatened to strike her. She did go to the police station and get some form of warrant for the appellant. Appellant's sister and two of his nieces testified that he was very disagreeable in his home and wanted to collect all the money, and was a bad influence. Frank testified that he had always been afraid of his father. The evidence shows that the appellee had paid the boy up until the time of the trial, for his services, the sum of about $748.25, and at that time the boy was still living with Mrs. Bulko. The father testified that he did not want to keep any of his son's money but wanted to see that the boy did not waste it.

In the early case of Bullett v. Worthington, 3 Md. Ch. 99 at page 104, it was said: 'Under such circumstances, and, indeed, even though the son did not live with the father, still, being a minor, the father was entitled to his services, and could maintain an action for them, unless, by some act of his own, he had divested himself of his control over him. Mercer v. Walmsley, 5 Har. & J. 27 '. In the case of Malone v. Topfer, 125 Md. 157, at pages 160 and 161, 93 A. 397, at [182 Md. 58] page 398, Ann.Cas. 1916E, 1272, where a mother sued for loss of services of the daughter, the father and mother having been divorced, the Court said: 'Whether either parent has by his or her act forfeited the parental rights with respect to their child has several times been considered. If such be the case the parent so forfeiting...