Case Name: L. B. BALDWIN, ADMINISTRATOR, v. TOWN OF WORCESTER
Court: Vermont Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Vermont
Decision Date: 1893
Citations: 66 Vt. 54
Docket Number: 
Parties: L. B. BALDWIN, ADMINISTRATOR, v. TOWN OF WORCESTER.
Judges: 
Reporter: Vermont Reports
Volume: 66
Pages: 54–55

Head Matter:
L. B. BALDWIN, ADMINISTRATOR, v. TOWN OF WORCESTER.
General Term, 1893.
Evidence tending to show emancipation of child.
That a child has become of full age is evidence tending to show its emancipation.
General assumpsit. Plea, the general issue. Trial by jury at the September term, 1892, Chittenden county, Rowell, J., presiding. Verdict directed for the defendant, to which the plaintiff excepts.
The plaintiff brought suit for the support of the adult pauper son of his intestate. The court directed a verdict upon the ground that there was no consideration for the promise relied upon. In so doing it acted upon the supposition that the son was unemancipated, and so distinctly announced at the time, and counsel made no suggestion that such was not the fact, but allowed the case to be disposed of with that understanding upon the part of the court. The question decided appears in the opinion.
D. J. Foster and Seneca Haselton for the plaintiff.
The evidence tended to show that the pauper was emancipated. Poultney v. Glover, 23 Vt. 332; Hardwich v. Paw let, 36 Vt. 320.
S. C. Shurtleff for the defendant.
The plaintiff, not having asked that the question of emancipation be submitted to the jury, cannot claim here that it should have been. Seguin v. Peterson, 45 Vt. 255 ; State v. Preston, 48 Vt. 12 ; Hathaway, Admr., v. National Life Ins. Co., 48 Vt. 335.
The evidence did not tend to show emancipation. Poultney v. Glover, 23 Vt. 328 ; Bradford v. Lunenburg, 5 Vt. 481.

Opinion:
TAFT, J.
The court below, understanding that the pauper was an unemancipated son of the plaintiff's intestate, held that there was no consideration for the contract upon which the plaintiff claimed to recover, and directed a verdict for the defendant. If the fact of unemancipation was as understood and stated by the court, the ruling was correct. There was testimony tending to show that the pauper was emancipated; his becoming of full age, which appeared in evidence, afforded a presumption of it, unless the contrary was shown. If the pauper was emancipated, the ruling of the court was erroneous ; the testimony tending to show it, the question should have been submitted to the jury. In not so doing there was error.
Judgment reversed and cause remanded.