Court Opinion

ID: 9577604
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:36:26.416531+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:20:55.253903
License: Public Domain

HENRIOD, Chief Justice
(concurring in the result).
I concur in the result as it applies to this case and the statutory authority to sustain it. However, I would be disinclined to subscribe to the general proposition, as a principle, that as a concomitant of parental duty to support a child, “if a child is left destitute and a third party comes to the rescue and furnishes support, the latter is subrogated to the child’s right and may obtain reimbursement therefor.” 1
Such a principle easily could lead to inequities, in my opinion, and possibly open the door to officious, unsolicited meddling by relatives,, who, by seizing an opportunity during periods of economic adversity or distress, could preserve, via the vehicle of a judgment, carrying with it an 8 per cent bonus, a club continually to be wielded as a weapon against a destitute father who may thereafter come into some kind of an estate subject to execution. Such might eventuate where one officiously furnishes part of the support, where a parent furnishes the other part, within his means, but not on as high a nutritional basis.
The main opinion fortunately has stated that such a principle is not intended to result in harassment, but it fails to take into account the human equation or the persistence of a possibly toothy mother-in-law. Nor does it recognize the principle that if a parent is destitute and as a consequence so is his son, the State equally has an histori*1313cal and legal duty to support such a child,— and if the principle mentioned were carried to its logical extreme, the officious one furnishing the support, — so far as the doctrine of subrogation is concerned, — should be able to recover from the State as well as from the parent, for his having relieved either or both from a responsibility affini-tive to both.
I think the facts of this case justify the judgment, but I think that intention of the parties, their relationship, their motives, a strict bookkeeping accountability, reason-ability, due process, etc., should be prefaced and reflected by clear proof, and in like manner should be concomitants of Good Samaritanism, volunteerism, Salvation Armyism, or unsoliciated officiousness.

. Which would most likely be quoted as the law in cases to come.