The obligation of the father to maintain the child is and always has been recognized, in some way and in some degree,

52; Darby v. Boucher, 1 Salk. 279; Pro-bart v. Knouth, 2 Esp. 472, n.; Beelor v. Young, 1 Bibb, 519, 521; Earle v. Peak', 1 Salk. 387, 10 Mod. 67; Bateman v. Kings-ton, 6 L. R. Ir. 328; Chapman v. Hughes, 61 Miss. 339; Walker v. Simpson, 7 W. & S. 83, 88; Bent v. Manning, 10 Vt. 225, 230. It is otherwise in equity. Marlow v. Pitfield, 1 P. Wms. 558. But money advanced to an officer, to procure the liberation of an infant from an arrest on a debt for necessaries, may be recovered, it not being, strictly speaking, money lent. Clarke v. Leslie, 5 Esp. 28. [So a recognizance entered into to secure freedom from imprisonment on a criminal charge binds a minor. State v. Weatherwax, 12 Kan. 463. And see Fagin v. Goggin, 12 R. I. 398.] So an infant is liable for money paid at his request to satisfy a debt which he had contracted for necessaries. Randall v. Sweet, 1 Denio, 460; Kilgore v. Rich, 83 Me. 305. So if the infant gives bis note for the necessaries, and another signs as surety, and subsequently pays the note, he may recover the amount of the infant. Conn v. Co-burn, 7 N. H. 368; Haine v. Tarrant, 2 Hill (S. C), 400.

(d) Tupper v. Cadwell, 11 Met. 559; Wallis v Bardwell, 126 Mass. 366.

(e) Mut. F. Ins. Co. v. Noyes, 32 N. H. 345.

(f) Merriam v. Cunningham, 11 Cush. 40. See also, on the point of his binding himself by contract, Swift v. Barnett, 10 Cush. 436, and Hussey v. Roundtree, Busb. L. 110.

(g) Morrill v. Aden, 19 Vt. 505; Pres-cott v. Norris, 32 N. H. 101.

(gg) Thrall v. Wright, 38 Vt. 494. And see note (b), ante.

1 Clothing and bridal outfit supplied an infant for her marriage, though liner than would ordinarily be requisite, may be a necessary, Sams v. Stockton, 14 B. Mon. 232, Garr v. Haskett, 86 Ind 373; Jordan v. Coffield, 70 N. C. 110, 113. Likewise, dentistry, Strong v. Foote, 42 Conn. 203. But a pair of jewelled solitaires worth £25, and an antique silver goblet worth.£15 15s., intended for a present, are not necessaries, Ryder v. Wombwell, L. R.3 Ex. 90, L. R.4 Ex. 32. Nor travelling expenses incurred for pleasure, McKanna v. Merry, 61 Ill. 177. Nor a buggy, Howard v. Simpkins, 70

Ga. 322. Nor a wagon, Paul v. Smith, 41 Mo. App. 275. Nor a bicycle, Pyne v. Wood

145 Mass. 558. Nor materials for a house, Wornock v. Loar, 11 S. \V. Rep. 438 (Ky.) Nor are supplies furnished an infant in planting on his own account. Nor provisions if he is boarding with his father, Decell v. Lewenthal, 57 Miss. 331.

" The law does not encourage persons to engage in business during non-age, but, on the contrary, its policy is to keep infants from engaging in business, until they have attained full age, and upon this ground it is uniformly held that articles purchased for business purposes, whether that of agriculture or commerce, cannot be deemed accessaries. This is the law, as the courts declare, even though the infant depends upon his business for support." House v. Alexander, 105 Ind. 109, 110. In Georgia by statute an infant is liable for articles purchased to aid him in his business. McKamy v. Cooper, 81 Ga. 679.

in all civilized countries. The infant cannot support himself , others must therefore supply him with the means of subsistence, and the only question is, whether the public (that is, the State) shall do this, or his parent. And justice, equally with the best affections of our nature, answers that it is the duty of the parent. But it is a very difficult question how far this duty is made a legal obligation by the common law.

In England, after much questioning, and perhaps a tendency to hold the father liable for necessaries supplied to the child on the ground of moral obligation and duty, (h) it seems to be on the whole settled, that this moral obligation is not a legal one; and indeed it has been recently peremptorily decided that no * such legal obligation exists in the case of contracts made by the child for necessaries. (i) The father's

(h) In Simpson v. Robertson, 1 Esp. 17 (1793), which is the earliest case on this point, Lord Kenyan said he had ruled before, that if a tradesman colludes with a young man, and furnishes him with clothes to an extravagant degree, though the father might hare been liable had they been to a reasonable extent, the tradesman who gives credit to such an extravagant degree shall not, at law, be allowed to recover. Crautz v Gill, 2 Esp. 471 (1796), decided that if the father gives the son a reasonable allowance for his expenses, he is not liable even for necessaries furnished to the son. The presumption of liability was rebutted by the allowance. But this case seems to imply that such liability exists in the absence of rebutting circumstances. - In Urmston v. Newcomen, 4 A. & E. 899, 6 Nev. & M. 454 (1836), it was considered as a doubtful question whether a parent was, at common law, liable to pay a third person who furnishes necessaries for his deserted child. Sir John Campbell, Attorney-General, arguendo, says, p. 903: "Then the question is whether a father, if he desert his legitimate child, be not liable in assumpsit to any one who provides food and clothing for it. There is no express decision on the point." Alexander, contra: " The supposed foundation of the defendant's liability does not exist. It is not true that, by the common law, a father is bound to maintain his child." Lord Den-man, C. J., says: "The general question is important; but the facts do not raise it." And afterwards: " The general question, therefore, which we should approach with much anxiety, does not arise." Litttedale, J.: " The general question does not arise." Patteson, J.: " I agree that the general question does not arise." Coleridge, J.: "It is best to say nothing on the general question. For the purpose of this case, I will assume (what is not to be understood as my opinion at present), that the general liability is as contended by the Attorney-General." - In Law v. Wilkin, 6 A. & E. 718 (1837), the defendant's son was from home at school, and appeared to be in want of clothes which the plaintiff supplied him. When the boy went home, he took the clothes with him but did not wear them. There was no evidence that the father ever saw the clothes, or that he had any communication with the plaintiff before or after they were furnished. The judge at nisi prius non-suited the plaintiff, thinking there was not sufficient evidence to go to the jury to charge the defendant. The Court of King's Bench set aside the nonsuit on the ground that there was some evidence to that effect; and Lord Denman, C. J., who with his brethren the year before had carefully and almost anxiously avoided the question, in Urmston v. Newcomen, now said: " A father is properly liable for any necessary provision made for his infant sou." Littledale, Patteson, and Coleridge, JJ., made no objection to this dictum, although the decision of the case did not require it. - In Cooper v. Phillips, 4 C.&P. 581 (1831), Taunton, J., says: "lithe father of a family lives at a distance from the place at which his children are, and puts them under the protection of servants, I am of opinion that if any accident occurs to one of the children, even from the carelessness of the servant, the father of the family is bound to pay for the medical attendance on such child." See Bazeley v. Forder, L. R. 3 Q. B. 559.