St. Ferdinand Loretto Acad. v. Bobb

• Decision Date: 31 March 1873
• Parties: ST. FERDINAND LORETTO ACADEMY, Respondent, v. CHARLES BOBB, Appellant.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

52 Mo. 357

ST. FERDINAND LORETTO ACADEMY, Respondent,

v.CHARLES BOBB, Appellant.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

March Term, 1873.

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court.

Lackland, Martin and Lackland, for Appellant.

In the absence of special statutes to the contrary, the father in law is not obliged to maintain his step-children. (Schouler's Domestic Relations, 321; Commonwealth vs. Hamilton, 6 Mass., 273; Freto vs. Brown, 4 Mass., 675; Worcester vs. Marchant, 14 Pick., 510; Tubb vs. Harrison, 4 T. R., 118; 2 Kent Com., 192; Freto vs. Brown, 4 Mass., and in addition to the cases above cited, see the case of Gay vs. Ballou, 4 Wend., 403.)

The defendant never assumed any control over the stepdaughter at all, and did not stand in loco parentis.

Bakewell & Farish, for Respondent.

If a man marry a widow, he is not bound to maintain her children, unless he holds them out to the world as part of his family, in which case he is liable. (Schouler's Domestic Relations, 77; Stone vs. Carr, 3 Espinasse, 1; Cooper vs. Martin, 4 East., 75.)

EWING, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court.

This was an action to recover a sum of money, which in claimed to be due for board and tuition furnished by plaintiff to one Adaline Frazier, the daughter of the defendant's wife. The defendant admits in his answer, that his said step-daughter Adaline was a pupil at said Academy for some time, but denies that he placed her there, or authorized any one to do so, and denies any indebtedness whatever.

The testimony tended to prove, that the daughter was at the Academy from March, 1866, to June 1867, as a pupil, that her mother was married to defendant when Adaline was about twelve years old, and that she lived in defendant's family with her mother, as a member of the family, from that time until her marriage; that she was occasionally at home during her pupilage at the Academy; that she inherited some money from her father's estate, which was received by her mother after her marriage with defendant; that the Superior of the Academy was informed by Adaline's mother, when she placed her at school, that she would receive said inheritance from her father's estate, out of which it was intended to pay for her tuition; that a part of the tuition bill was paid by her mother; that defendant was not consulted in reference to the education of his step-daughter, and took no control of it.

The court refused to give the following instructions asked by the defendant.

1. That if at the time Adaline was placed at the Academy, the contract between the Academy and her mother was, that the latter should receive board and tuition, and all necessaries at said institution, and that the same were to be paid for out of moneys coming to said Adaline from the estate of her father, the verdict should be for the defendant.

2. That if the said Adaline was the step-daughter of the defendant, he is not liable, unless he held the said Adaline out to the plaintiff as a member of his family at the time the contract was made.

3. That if the services set out in the petition were rendered at the request of the mother of said Adaline, and not at the request of the defendant, they will find for the defendant.

The court refused to give these instructions, and gave the following, namely:

“If the jury believe from the evidence, that Ada Frazier, the daughter of the defendant's wife, was a member of his family, and by him held out to the world as such: that defendant knew that she was placed at the school of plaintiff, and made no opposition thereto, that her education there and its expense were such as were reasonably suited to the means and social position of the defendant, that the services were rendered and the charge reasonable, they will find for plaintiff such amount as they shall find from the evidence to be still unpaid.”

The only questions in this case arise upon the instructions given and refused. The first instruction asked by the defendant was properly refused, because it was not warranted by the evidence. There was no evidence of an AGREEMENT between defendant's wife and the plaintiff, that the tuition and board of Adaline were to be paid for out of the moneys coming to her from the estate of her father, or that she was taken into the Academy on the faith of any assurance of payment from that source. But if the daughter had a fund or an estate of her own, whether it could have been subjected to the payment of the debt does not and could not arise in this case; this is an action at law, and the question...