(e) Emery v. Kempton, 2 Gray, 257. See, in this connection, Jenness v. Emerson, 15 N. H. 486.

(f) Wodell v. Coggeshall, 2 Met. 89; Chilson v. Philips, 1 Vt. 41.

(g) Jenness v. Emerson, 15 N. H. 486.

(h) Gale v. Parrott, 1 N. H. 28.

(j) Jenny v. Alden, 12 Mass. 375; Morse v. Welton, 6 Conn. 547; Whiting v. Earle, 3 Pick. 201; Varney v Young, 11 Vt. 258; Burlingame v. Burlingame, 7 Cowen, 92; Bray v. Wheeler, 3 Williams, 514. In Tillotson v. McCrillis, 11 Vt. 477, it is held that a father may give to his minor son a part as well as the whole of his time.

(j) Canover v. Cooper, 3 Barb. 115; Clinton v. York, 26 Me. 167; Stiles v. Granville, 6 Cush. 458; Wodell v. Coggeshall, 2 Met. 91; Cloud v. Hamilton, 11 Humph. 104; Farrell v. Farrell, 3 Houst, 633

(k) Whiting v. Earle, 3 Pick. 201; Armstrong v. McDonald, 10 Barb. 300.

(l) Freto v. Brown. 4 Mass. 675; and see Hollingsworth v. Swedenborg, 49 Ind. 378.

It may be added, that while an infant remains under the care and control of his father, and is in fact supported by him, the infant is not liable, even on his express contract, to a stranger for necessaries furnished for him. One reason given for this is, that it would interfere with his father's right of judging how he should be supported. (n) Where services are rendered at the parent's request, it will be presumed that credit is given to him alone, and in that case the infant cannot be liable even for necessaries. (o) And it is held that the emancipation of an infant by his father does not enlarge his capacity to contract. (oo)

The common-law liability of a parent to support his child ceases altogether when the infant becomes of full age; and then a parent would not be bound even by his express promise to pay for necessaries previously furnished to the child, not at the request of the parent. (p)1 If they were furnished at his request it would be otherwise. (q)

(n) Angel v. McLellan, 16 Mass. 28; Wailing v. Toll. 9 Johns. 141; Hull v. Connolly, 3 McCord, 6; Kline v. L'Amou-reux, 2 Paige, 419; Guthrie v. Murphy, 4 Watts, 60; Simms v. Norris, 5 Ala. 42; Johnson v. Lines, 6 W. & S. 80; Phelps v. Worcester, 11 N. H. 51.

(o) Duncomb v. Tickridge, Aleyn, 94: Phelps v. Worcester, 11 N. H. 51 . Simms v. Norris, 5 Ala. 42.

(oo) Person v. Chase, 37 Vt. 647.

(p) Mills v. Wyman, 3 Pick 207 Set also Cook v, Bradley, 7 Conn

(q) Loomis v. Newhall, 15 Pick 159

1 Nor would a subsequent express promise render a parent liable to pay for goods furnished an infant, for which the parent was not otherwise bound to pay. Freeman V. Robinson, 38 N. J. L. 383.

If a son or daughter remains with the parent after coming of age rendering services, it is held that neither he nor she can recover wages, without a contract for them. (qq) Because if a child after becoming adult continues to live with his or her parent, the law implies no promise of wages on the part of the parent. (qr) But the jury will judge from all the evidence whether there was such a contract. (qs)

By statute of 43 Eliz. c. 2, the father, " being of ability," is liable to contribute to his child's support even after he becomes of age. And in some of our States similar provision is made. (r) But such a liability is wholly statutory, and does not accrue until proceedings are had pursuant to the statute. (s) So at common law a son is not liable for the support of an infirm and indigent parent. (t) Nor is a father liable at common law for the support of his illegitimate child. The only remedy is under the statute, procuring an order of filiation, and the like. (u)

It should be added, that a father is not liable for the wilful tort of his infant child. (v) And it is said that he has no right, resulting from the parental relation, to maintain an action for injury to his child, unless there be some injury to the father; (w) but it is enough if the father be put to any expense for the care or cure of the child. (x) Neither can he give a valid release for an assault on his minor child. (y)

It seems to be held that a father cannot maintain an action, for loss of service, against a railroad company, by whose negligence the child was killed. (z) If this be law, it may perhaps be regretted that the action "per quod servitium, amisit" does not extend to such a case.

(qq) Leidig v. Coover's Ex'ors, 47 Penn. St. 534; Adams v. Adams' Adm. 23 Ind. 50.

(qr) Luney v. Vantyne, 40 Vt. 501,

(qs) Hart v. Hart's Adm'x, 41 Mo. 441.

(r) The provision in the Rev. Stat. of Massachusetts, ch. 46, § 5, is very broad: " The kindred of any such poor person, if any he shall have, in the line or degree of father or grandfather, mother or grandmother, children or grandchildren, by consanguinity, living within this State, and of sufficient ability, shall be bound to support such pauper, in proportion to their respective ability."

(s) Loomis v. Newhall, 15 Pick. 169; Mortimore v. Wright, 6 M. & W. 488; Gordon v. Potter, 17 Vt. 348; Shelton v,

Springett, 20 E. L. & E. 281; s. c. 11 C. B. 462.

(t) Edwards v. Davis, 16 Johns. 281; Rex v. Munden, 1 Stra. 190. But see Gilbert v. Lynes, 2 Root, 168; Ex parte Hunt, 5 Cowen, 284.

(u) Furillio v. Crowther, 7 Dow. & R. 612; Cameron v. Baker, 1 C. & P. 268; Moncrief v. Ely, 19 Wend. 405.

(v) As for setting the father's dog upon the hog of the plaintiff. Tifft v. Tifft, 4 Denio, 175.

(w) Stephenson v. Hall, 14 Barb. 222.

(x) Dennis v. Clark, 2 Cush. 347.

(y) Loomis v. Cline, 4 Barb. 453; Eades v. Booth, 8 A. & E. (n. s.) 718.

(z) Carey v. Berkshire R. R. Co. 1 Cush. 475. [Many other cases are collected in Cooley on Torts, p 27.] See, however, Ford v. Monroe, 20 Wend. 210.

A father may devise away all his property, leaving nothing whatever to his infant children, or for their support, if he mentions them in the will so as to show that he intends this.(a)