Case ID: njl_3/html/0531-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "By the Court.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

[*] IVINS against NORCROSS.
    OH OEBTIOEAEI.
    Action lies not, for enticing away an apprentice who did not sign his indenture.
    
    The action below was brought for a penalty under'the apprentice act, for enticing away an apprentice of the plaintiff from his service. It appeared from the proceedings below, that the indenture under which the apprentice was held to service, was signed only by the parent of the apprentice, and not by the apprentice himself. It was therefore contended for the plaintiff in certiorari, who was the defendant below, that in order to maintain an action in a case like the present, there must be an apprentice serving under indenture, made in conformity to the act.
    
      Brown, for plaintiff.
    
      
       S. P. ante, 845.
      
    
   By the Court.

This is no indenture of apprenticeship. The action cannot be sustained.

Judgment reversed.

Cited in Fisher v. Lunger, 4 Vr. 100,