Case Name: BELL v. HALLENBACK, ET AL.
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1834-11
Citations: 1 Ohio Ch. 751
Docket Number: 
Parties: BELL v. HALLENBACK, ET AL.
Judges: 
Reporter: Reports of cases at law and in chancery Ohio
Volume: 1
Pages: 751–752

Head Matter:
BELL v. HALLENBACK, ET AL.
Child’s wages — invested in real estate — subject to father’s debts — fraud.
A father has a right to the custody and earnings of his minor children, and if he invest their earnings in real'estate, and take a title to them, the estate will be charged with the debts he then owed.
If the father have other property to satisfy the judgment, he should so describe it that it maybe reached.
Chancery. The bill prays execution of two judgments against Hallenback, execution having been taken out and returned nulla bona. It claims that Hallenbach purchased two lots of ground, paid for them, and took the deed to his children, one aged fourteen, •and the other ten years. The answer of Hallenback admits the judgment, execution, purchase of the lots, and payment and deed, but he alleges that his boys earned the money and he invested it for -them, and that he has other property in Licking county.
The proof is, that the father purchased, and paid for the lots, built -a house upon them, took the deed to the boys, and has ever since ■exercised acts of ownership over them, and said he purchased for himself. The boys worked with their father on the canal, under his direction, and were supported by him.
Olds, for the complainant,
insisted upon his right to charge the judgment upon the lots, and that the earnings of the child, while supported by the father, belonged to the father.
Caldwell and Irvin, contra,
insisted the father merely took the ■earnings of his children in trust, to be invested for them, and cited 1 Blk. C. 453; 2Kent C. 194; 12 Mass. R. 375; 15 Mass. R. 174.

Opinion:
Collett, C. J.
The father as the natural guardian of his children is bound to support them, and as an equivalent, the law gives .him the custody of their persons during minority, and entitles him to their labor, or their wages, if they labor for others. In the present case, the earnings of the children, while working with him and supported by him, was his. If, therefore, that money alone purchased and improved the lots, it was his, and he could not by investing it in the name of his children, secure it for them or himself to the prejudice of his creditors. As to the property mentioned in Licking county there is no proof. The judgment will be charged on the lots, if not satisfied, and a sale will be decreed for that purpose.