Case ID: hill_2/html/0596-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Bronson, J. ■", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

The People, ex rel. North, vs. The First Judge of Livingston.
    Since the revised statutes, the person who is to consent to the binding of an op. prentice, must do so by a certificate at the end of or endorsed upon the in-, dentures; and his mere signature to the latter, though they express his consent, will not answer.
    No form of words is necessaiy in the certificate; but it will be deemed sufficient if it fairly import the requisite consent.
    Accordingly, where, in the body of an apprentice’s indentures, it was stated that his father had consented &c., who together with the son and master joined in executing the same, and then followed an agreement subscribed by the father, that his son should in all things well and truly observe and keep the indentures: Held, a sufficient compliance with the statute, and a valid binding of the apprentice.
    Apprentices. By indenture, dated December 1, 1836, it was witnessed, “ that John Plane, son of Perling Plane, aged 14 years the first day of March last past, with the consent of Perling Plane his father, and of his own free will, hath placed and bound himself apprentice to Henry P. North, to learn a certain trade, and to serve until he should be 21 years old. The indenture contained the usual provisions, and was signed by the apprentice, his father and North. Then followed a stipulation in these words: “And for the faithful performance and observance of the said apprentice .of the matters and things by him to be observed and performed as aforesaid, the said Perling Plane, the father of the said apprentice,.doth hereby bind himself to the said Henry P. North, that the said apprentice shall in all things well and truly keep and observe this indenture. (Signed,) Perling Plane.”
    The apprentice having refused to serve his master according to the indenture, was, on the 16th of November, 1840, brought before a justice of the peace by warrant; and he still persisting in such refusal, was committed to the common jail of the county of Livingston, in pursuance of 2 R. S. 159, § 29. On the 4th of December following the apprentice sued out a writ of habeas corpus, returnable before William H. Smith, first judge of Livingston county; and the judge, on the 11th day of that month, made an order discharging the apprentice from imprisonment, on the ground that the indenture was not in accordance with the statute concerning apprentices and servants, and was not valid as against the apprentice.
    The proceedings before the judge were removed into this court by certiorari, and the only question was, whether the father had properly signified his consent to the binding. (2 R. S. 154, § 1—3.)
    
      Willis Hall, for the relator.
    
      M. T. Reynolds, for the apprentice.
   By the Court,

Bronson, J. ■

It was formerly necessary that the consent of the father, or other proper person, to the binding, should be expressed in the indenture, and that he should seal and sign the same. (2 R. L. 135, § 2.) When the father went beyond the expression of his consent, and covenanted for performance on the part of the apprentice," he was held liable for a breach of the indenture by the apprentice. (Bull v. Follett, 5 Cowen, 170.) It seems to have been supposed by one of the subsequent revisers of the laws, that the guardian was in that case held liable when he only intended to signify his consent to the binding; and it is now provided, that “ such consent shall be signified in writing, by the person entitled to give the same, by a certificate at the end of, or endorsed upon, the indentures, and not otherwise.” (2 R. S. 154, § 3.) The legislature evidently intended to alter the law on this subject; and the consent of the father expressed in the body of this indenture, and manifested by his signing the instrument, was not sufficient. But it did no harm. It could not render it improper for the father to add or endorse his consent in the form prescribed by the statute; and that he has done. His consent was “ signified in writing, by a certificate at the end of the indentures.” True, he has not in that writing said, in terms, I consentbut he has used words which are fully equivalent. After declaring his “ consent” in the body of the indenture, he adds, “ at the end” an express covenant that the apprentice “ shall in all things well and truly keep and observe this indenture.” I cannot entertain a doubt that there has been a full compliance with the statute, and that the indentures are valid.

Proceedings reversed.