Tennessee Manuf'G Co. v. James

• Decision Date: 26 January 1892
• Citation: 18 S.W. 262
• Parties: TENNESSEE MANUF'G CO. v. JAMES.
• Court: Tennessee Supreme Court

18 S.W. 262

TENNESSEE MANUF'G CO. v. JAMES.

Supreme Court of Tennessee.

January 26, 1892.

Error to circuit court, Davidson county; W. K. McALLISTER, Judge.

Action by Minnie James, a minor, by her next friend, against the Tennessee Manufacturing Company, to recover on a quantum meruit for work and labor performed by her for defendant. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Reversed.

E. J. Wickware, for plaintiff in error. Dickinson & Frazer, for defendant in error.

LURTON, J.

Minnie James, a minor, was an employe of the appellant, a corporation engaged in the manufacture of cotton goods. The contract of employment was in writing, and was with the minor and her father. By one of the provisions of the contract it was stipulated that the employe should give two weeks notice of her intention to quit. It is further provided that, in case she should leave without giving two weeks' notice, "or fail or refuse to faithfully work during a period of two weeks after giving notice of an intention to leave, * * * then it is hereby agreed that the amount stated below for the class to which I may belong is agreed upon as liquidated damages due said Tennessee Manufacturing Company at the time of my failure to comply with the terms of this contract, to compensate it for all damages, both actual and exemplary, and all loss, arising from my failure to carry out the terms of this agreement; and it is further agreed upon that said amount, applicable to the class of employes to which I may belong, shall be deducted from any sum which may be due me by said company, whether on account of services rendered or otherwise." The class to which appellee belonged was that of those receiving 50 cents per day and under $1. The damages stipulated for this class was $10. At the foot of this agreement, which was signed by appellee, was this further agreement signed by her father: "The foregoing agreement has been read by me, and, fully understanding the same, it is also agreed to by me, as binding both me and my daughter, Minnie James, who is legally disqualified from making this contract, to all its terms and conditions. I agree, further, that said Minnie James is hereby authorized to receive the wages of said work, and that all sums paid to said employe are to be accepted as fully discharging all liability, to the full amount so paid; and said wages are to be subject to all the conditions of this contract, as though said employe was legally empowered to act in person." Appellee gave notice of her intention to leave, and thereafter worked 10 days, but at the end of that time quit without any excuse. At the time she quit there was due her 20 days' wages, including the 10 days after her notice. If the stipulation as to damages is invalid, then the company is due her $10; if valid, then nothing is due her. Upon quitting she brought suit, by her father as next friend, upon a quantum meruit. The contract has been set up as a defense to her suit.

The circuit judge being of opinion that the contract was invalid, as being one with a minor who had a legal right to repudiate same, gave judgment for the plaintiff. In this we think his honor erred. If the contract had been alone with the minor, she might undoubtedly repudiate it, and recover upon a quantum meruit. The law would give the infant the privilege of judging whether such a contract was beneficial or not, and of avoiding it if she elected to do so, and recovering the value of her services as if she worked without any contract. 10 Amer. & Eng. Enc. Law, tit. "Infant." But this contract was in law with the father, who agreed that the wages in law due to him might be paid over to his child, "subject to all the conditions of this contract." The wages of a minor, peculiar circumstances out of the way, are due to the father. This springs from his legal duty to support and educate his child. He may permit the minor to take and use his own earnings. This is called "emancipation," and emancipation will be a defense to the father's suit for the minor's wages. It may be express or implied; entire or partial. It may be conditional. It may be in writing or oral; for the whole minority or for a shorter term; as to a part of the child's wages or as to the whole. Emancipation will not enlarge the minor's capacity to contract; it simply precludes the father from asserting his claim to the wages of his child. Bish. Cont. § 898. If one employ a minor with notice of the non-emancipation of the infant, it will be no defense to the father's suit for the wages that the child has received them. On the other hand, payment to the father will be no defense to the minor's suit, if the employer knew of the fact of emancipation. These principles of the common law are well settled, and have not been affected by statu...