Case ID: scl_16/html/0009-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Mr. Justice Gantt.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Rhody Volentine, vs. John Bladen.
    
      Jl mother is. entitled to recover, on a'written contract made with her for that purpose, ivages due for the labor of her infant •son.
    
    This was an action of assumpsit, brought by the plaintiff against the defendant, founded on a written contract, whereby the plaintiff agreed to put her son, Wiley, to work with the defendant for one year: “ That the said Wiley was to work as a constant hand in the field, according to the directions of the defendant, and receive one-third of the cotton and one-fourth of the grain, &c. for his services.” The plaintiff proved that lier son, Wiley, worked with the defendant from January until June. The defendant’s council moved for a nonsuit, on the ground, that according to the legal effect of the written contract, the plaintiff was not interested; in as much as the same was made for the benefit of her son, Wiley, and he was the only person that could sustain any injury for a breach of the contract.
    The presiding Judge over ruled the motion, and the case went to the Jury, who found a verdict for the plaintiff, from which the defendant appealed on foe ground taken on the Cir--Glfit.
   The opinion of the Court r was delivered by

Mr. Justice Gantt.

The plaintiff in this case hired her son (a boy under age) to foe defendant for one year. 0y remained from January until June, when for some cause foe hoy left foe service'of foe defendant.

This action was brought by the mother, to recover foe value of her son’s services for the time he remained-

I see nothing in the contract which tends to impair the Correctness of- the construction given tu it by the' presiding Judge. _. The contract was made with the mother and for her benefit; consequently she might rightfully and legally recover the wages secured to he paid by the contract, which the defendant had entered into with her.

The nonsuit moved for, is refused..

Richardson, Johnson, Colcock, Justices concurred.