In this country, the rule of law varies in the different States. In most of them in which the question has come before the courts, the legal liability of the parent for necessaries furnished to the infant, is asserted, unless they are supplied by the father; and it is put on the ground that the moral obligation is also a legal one, and some of our courts have declared this quite strongly. (k) In other States the present English rule has been * declared to be law, and agency and authority are held to be the only ground of such liability. (l)

(k) See Stanton v. Willson, 3 Day, 37 (1808). In this ease the father had been divorced from the plaintiff, his former wife, and two of her children were ordered into her custody as guardian. A third remained with his father (the defendant), for a few years, when through fear of personal violence and abuse from his father he fled, and went to live with his mother and her second husband, who furnished him with support and education. The action was brought to recover for the support of the three children. " It was agreed that the whole of the charges accrued without any request from the father, and that he never made any express promise to pay them." The court (two judges dissenting), held the father liable for the whole bill, saying: " Parents are bound by law to maintain, protect, and educate their legitimate children during their infancy. This duty rests on the father. But because the father has abandoned his duty and trust, by putting the child out of his protection, he cannot thereby exonerate himself from its maintenance, education, and support. The duty remains, and the law will enforce its performance, or there must be a failure of justice. The infant cast on the world must seek protection and safety where it can be found; and where with more propriety can it apply than to the next friend, nearest relative, and such as are most interested in its safety and happiness? The father having forced his child abroad to seek a sustenance under such circumstances, sends a credit along with him, and shall not be permitted to say it was furnished without his consent, or against his will." But see Finch v. Finch, 22 Conn. 411, post, note (o). In the case of Edwards v. Davis, 16 Johns. 284, it was decided that there was no common-law obligation requiring a child to support a parent; but Spencer, J., in delivering the opinion of the court, said: "The duty of a parent to maintain his offspring, until they attain the age of maturity, is a perfect common-law duty." In the matter of Ryder, 11 Paige, 187, Walworth, C, says: " A parent who has the means is undoubtedly bound to support his or her minor child." For recent New York decisions, see close of next note. See also Benson v. Remington, 2 Mass. 113; Whipple v. Dow, id. 415; Dawes v. Howard, 4 id. 97; Van Valkinburgh v. Watson, 13 Johns. 480; Pidgin v. Cram, 8 N. H. 350, 2 Kent, Com. 193; Call v. Ward, 4 W. & S. 118; Dennis v. Clark, 2 Cush. 353; State v. Cook, 12 Ired. L. 67; Beasley v. Watson, 41 Ala. 234; Jordan v. Wright, 45 Ark. 237; McMillen v. Lee, 78 Ill. 443; Porter v. Powell, 79 Ia. 151; Gilley v. Gilley, 79 Me. 292; Gleason v. Boston, 144 Mass. 25; Tyler v. Arnold, 47 Mich. 564; McShan v. McShan, 56 Miss. 412; Parker v. Til-linghast, 19 Abb. N. C. 190; Pretzinger v. Pretzinger, 45 Ohio St. 452; Fitler v. Fitler, 33 Pa. 50; Gill v. Read, 5 R. I. 343; Fowlkes v. Baker, 29 Tex. 135; Carpenter v. Tatro, 36 Wis. 297.

(l) In, Hunt v. Thompson, 3 Scam. 180 (1841), Wilson, C. J., said: "That a parent is under an obligation to provide for the maintenance of his infant children is a principle of natural law; and it is upon this natural obligation alone that the duty of a parent to provide his infant children with the necessaries of life rests; for there is no rule of municipal law enforcing this duty. The claim of the wife upon the husband, for necessaries suitable to his rank and fortune, is recognized by the principles of the common law, and by statute. A like claim to some extent may be enforced in favor of indigent and infirm parents, and other relatives, against children, etc, in many cases; but, as a general rule, the obligation of a parent to provide for his offspring is left to the natural and inextinguishable affection which Providence has implanted in the breast of every parent.

* The law can hardly be considered as positively settled either in England or in this country. But, resting not much on direct and specific authorities, as on the general character of American jurisprudence on this subject, we would state, as strongly prevailing rules here, that where goods are supplied to an infant which are not necessaries, the father's authority must be proved to make him liable; where they are necessaries, the father's authority is presumed, unless he supplies them himself, or was ready to supply them; where the infant lives with the father, or under his control, his judgment as to what are necessaries will be so far respected, that he will be held liable only for things furnished to the infant to relieve him from absolute want; where the infant does not live with the father, but has voluntarily left him, the authority of the father must be strictly proved, unless, perhaps, in cases of absolute necessity; and where he has been deserted by the father, or driven away from him, either by command or by cruel treatment, there the infant carries with him the credit and authority of the father for necessaries. And wherever the question is how far the father is liable for necessaries supplied to the child, this word "necessaries " will not generally be understood in the very liberal sense given to it when the question is as to the capacity of the infant to contract, but will be interpreted according to the circumstances of the case. And if the child be of sufficient age and strength to earn by proper exertions the whole or a part of his subsistence, it will not be deemed " necessary " that the aid should be rendered to him which it would be " necessary " to * give to an infant incapacitated by tender years, or by debility of mind or body, from contributing to his own support.