Virginian-pilot. (Norfolk, Va.) 1898-1911, 1900-06-21
DIGESTED BY W. B. MARTIN.
EXCLUSIVELY FOR
vIRCiNiAN. PILOT.
Notes Of Cases Recently Decided,
Which are of Interest to
Our PeopIe.
WILKINSON v. DELLINGER.
Supreme Court of North Carolina.
May l, 1900.

If AN INFANT is LEGALLY MAR
RIED AFTER THE AGE OF CON
SENT, AND HER FATHER
THEREBY DEPRIVED OF HER
SERVICES. HE CANNOT RE-
COVER DAMAGES THEREFOR
FROM THE REGISTER OF DEEDS
FOR ILLEGALLY ISSUING THE
MARRIAGE LICENSE.
This was an action against the reg
lister of deeds of Catawba county on
MS official bond. From a judgment
Tor defendant plaintiff appealed.
Inc court says:
The plaintiffs daughter Elvy. at the
aSc OF 10 years. married one Iatwton
ana the plaintiff (Iivy's father) sues
the defendant. on his official bond as
register of deeds of Catawba county.
Tor unlawfully issuing the marriage
Incense. The complaint assigns two
causes OF action: % For the penalty
described by Code, sections 1914 1916; 90
1or damages in depriVlng the palintiff
OIL the services and companionship OF
MS daughter. The defendant demurred
TO the complaint for nisjoinder OF
causes of action. He demurs TO the
second assignment. in that the mar
rage was unlawful. and the plaintiff
thereafter was not, in law, entitled to
the services of his daughter. ana had
no property i'll them. His honor over
ruled the demurrer to the first assign
ment, form which no appeal was
taken. lie sustained the demurrer to
the second cause Of action. and the
plaintiff appealed to this court
The only question now before this
court is the exception to the ruling OF
his honor on the demurrer to the sec
onu cause of action. 4 female may
Iawiully marry at the age of II years.
Code. section 1909. From Il time where
memory runs not. the parent and those
IN loco PARENTS have Il right to the
company and services of the child dur
Ing It's infancy, and any one unlawfully
invading that right is liable to the
parent in damages. During the same
period of time the law requires the
parent 20 feed. clothe and protect the
infant This right and these duties go
toEether, ana, as Il general rule when
one legally terminates the other ceases.
Inc same principle pertains to the re-
latlon OF husand and WIFE and the
consequences of its violation is il.:. .
tratcd in iolleman V. Harvard, where
inc defendant was punished in dam
ages for selling laudanum. etc, to the
plaintiffs wife, knowing that the use
OF the same habitually resulted In loss
of companionship and services due the
plaintiff from their marital relation
IT is equally we'll settled that husband
who has married an infant at n time
when she may lawfully marry e. e.
after II years OF age) is entitled to
the company. comfort and services of
his wife, and that any interference
Herewith subjects the offender to pun
ishment in damages. This apparent
conflict between the rights of husband
and parent is not real. The law of
marrgae. on the grounds of public
policy and the peculiar relationship
established by marriage overrides the
right of the parent to the services OF
the child. and the duties OF care and
protection are imposed on the hus-
band. and ut the same moment those
duties. rs 10 the parent. cease. so the
marriage displaccs parental rights. in
stead of creating conflict The mar
riacc in n case Ike this emancipatcs
the wife from the former parental du-
ties and, If damage has come to the
plaintiff. It Is damnum absouc iniuria.
1t follows. therefore, that the plaintiff,
having no right to control nor any in
terest in the services -his-dauGhter.
cannot recover damages from any one.
Affirmed.