Case ID: ohio-ch_1/html/0547-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Lane, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

M’CLINTOCK AND WIFE v. CHAMBERLIN.
    Error — female adults — indentures—wages of miuois.
    A female before 1833, was not adult at eighteen years of age, for any other purpose than to enable Iter to contract matrimony, and to render her incapable of being bound by indenture of apprenticeship — the father had a right to her service, and to receive the wages if employed by another.
    Wheie the charge of the court is erroneous, but die error is favorable to the plaintiff in error, the judgment will not be reversed.
    A court of etror will only notice matters appearing on the record.
    Error to the common pleas. The suit below was assumpsit for the labor of the wife while sole, and while she was between eighteen and twenty-one years old: on trial it appeared in evidence ihaL the labor was performed, and that plaintiff's wife had been bound by an indenture to the defendant, which expired in December, 1831. That a second indenture had been executed by her and her father, which recited that the first one, owing to a mistake of a year in her age, had made her time expire one year too soon, and binding her for another year.
    The second indenture was objected to, because the girl being over eighteen when it was executed, was not bound by it, but the court admitted it, and charged the jury if they found that the plaintiff executed the second indenture, they must find for the defendant.
    For error in admitting this evidence, and in the charge to the jury, this writ is brought.
    
      Strait and Hawes for the plaintiff in error.
    
      Fox, contra.
   Lane, J.

The plaintiff’s wife, it is conceded, was under twenty-one years, when the labor, for which compensation was sought by the suit, was performed. Until the last session of the legislature, the age of majority for females as well as males in this state, was twenty-one, though they were exempt from service under indentures of apprenticeship, and had ability to contract matrimony. The law of last winter establishes eighteen as the age of majority for females for all purposes. That act has no influence on this case. But admitting what the plaintiff claims, that the second indenture was made when the girl was over eighteen, and inoperative as an indenture of apprenticeship; yet her father had a right to her services, and the contract was good for her wages, though not as an indenture of apprenticeship, to give the employer the authority and control of the person.

The charge of the court taken literally, may not materially affect the case. It was. of no consequence whether the girl executed the indenture or not — but the charge as given was more favorable to ' the plaintiffs, than it would have been as we understand the law, and they cannot therefore complain.

The claim to give proof of the obtaining the second indenture by fraud or duress, we cannot consider because it is not in the bill of exceptions.

The judgment is affirmed with costs.