Sec. 349. PARENT'S RIGHT OF ACTION FOR INJURIES TO CHILD.-The parent has a right of action for expenses and loss of services of the child caused by the negligence or wrongful act of another. (Hatfield v. Roper, 21 Wend. 615.) The action being founded on the loss of service, the English courts hold that for an injury to a child too young to be of service the action would not lie. (Hall v. Hollander, 4 B. & C. 660.) But the rule is more liberal in this country, and while it is doubtful if the father can be deprived of his right to sue for loss of services on account of child's youth, it is held that the expenses to which the parent is put may be recovered. (Dennis v. Clark, 2 Cush. 347; Sykes v. Lawlor, 49 Cal. 236.) The father being dead, the mother may maintain the action. (County Com. v. Hamilton, 60 Md. 340.) The recovery may extend to and cover a prospective loss of service. (Drew v. Railroad, 26 N. Y. 49.)

The child may be living with and in the service of another, and if the parent has not relinquished the right to its service the action lies. (Arnold v. Norton, 25 Conn. 92.) The culpable negligence of the parent always defeats or forfeits his right of action Railway, 92 Pa. St. 450; 21 Wend. 615.)

(Smith v.

The parent has an action for the enticing away or abducting of a child, or for the seduction of a daughter. The recovery here is also based on a loss of service, and injury to the child will not suffice, but the service need only be slight. (Vassal v. Cole, 10 Mo. 634; Kennedy v. Shea, 110 Mass. 147; Browne Dom. Rel., 82-8.)

The action of seduction may be maintained by the mother after the father's death, if the daughter was actually in her service. (Davidson v. Abbott, 52 Vt. 570.) And the action may be maintained by any one standing in the parent's place. The damage when recovered for seduction is not restricted to the loss of service, but may include distress of mind and loss of society. (Browne Dom. Rel., 84.)

By the common law the parent had no right of action for an injury causing the instantaneous death of the child, as there would be no loss of service during a lingering sickness, nor could he recover burial expenses. (Osborn v. Gillett, L. R. 8 Ex. 88.) But State statutes have remedied this too technical rule of the common law by allowing the parent to recover for the loss of a child caused by the negligence of others. (121 Mo. 227; 95 Cal. 510.)

LIABILITY

FOR

Sec. 350. PARENT'S CHILD'S TORTS.-The parent is not liable in damages for the torts or wrongs of his child committed without his knowledge, consent, participation or sanction, and not in the course of his employment of the child. (Schoul. Dom. Rel., Sec. 263.)

A Pennsylvania case holds the parent responsible for an act done by the son when they ride together, and the act is committed in the father's presence. (Strohl v. Levan, 39 Pa. St. 177.) But in Missouri the father was not held responsible for an independent assault committed by his infant son, without his sanction. (Baker v. Haldeman, 24 Mo. 219.) But if it can be

shown that the father participated in or sanctioned the wrong he may become liable (Hoverson v. Noker, 60 Wis. 511.) And the parent is liable for the child's

negligence in his service.

Cal. 368.)

(Teagarden v. Powers, 66

The infant is answerable for his torts out of his own estate if old enough to have known better than to have done the wrong. (Campbell v. Stakes, 3 Wend. 137;

45 Kans. 423.)

If the tort is committed while the child is acting as the agent of the father, the rule as to the liability of a principal applies. (86 Ind. 476.)

Sec. 351. DUTIES OF

CHILDREN.-The

moral duty of the child to the parents is to honor and obey them. The common law did not impose the obligation of support. (Edwards v. Davis, 16 Johns. 281; 2 Kent Com. 207.) The imperfect obligation of the child to support aged and indigent parents has been remedied by statute in most States, which require the children to support them if able to do so. (Schoul. Dom. Rel., Sec. 265; N. Y. Rev. Stat., p. 614.) And for necessaries furnished to parents at the request of a grown child, the latter is chargeable, and he is also liable to contribute for necessaries furnished by other children at his request. (45 N. H. 558; Stone v. Stone, 32

Conn. 142.)

Sec. 352. RIGHTS OF CHILDREN, EMANCIPATION.-The rights of children include those which we have already considered, as support, the power to bind the parent as agent, etc. Again, a father may

emancipate his minor child and thus give him a right to his own earnings. This term is borrowed from the Roman law, where it referred to the formality of enfranchisement by the father. Under our law the emancipation, or freeing from parental control, may be by a written instrument or by a parol agreement, or it may be inferred from the conduct of the parent. Its effect is to give the child the right to his own wages, the disposal of his own time, and, in a great measure, the control of his own person; and, on the other hand, to relieve the parent of all legal obligation to support. (Nightingale v. Withington, 15 Mass. 272.) Schoul. Dom. Rel., Ch. 5, Part III.

See

Sec. 353. VOLUNTARY CONVEYANCES.Voluntary gifts or conveyances to children are treated as in the case of husband and wife; while not favored, they will be supported if executed and not in fraud of creditors. (Oakes v. Oakes, 16 Ill. 106; Brown v. Scott, 7 Vt. 57; Schoul. Dom. Rel., Sec. 270, and cases.)

Sec. 354. ILLEGITIMATE CHILDREN.-By the common law an illegitimate child has no rights, as he was regarded as "filius nullius." A bastard was incapable of being heir to any one; could have no heirs save of his own body, and could have no surname save by reputation. (1 Bl. Com. 459.) *

*This harsh rule of the common law was not from any excess of virtue in the lawgivers of that day, but a part of the settled principles of the aristocracy to prevent their licentiousness from having any effect upon the monopoly of property which they

Statutes have modified the common law doctrine, and the mother and the bastard child can mutually inherit. (Stimson, Stat. Law, Secs. 3151-4.) So by statute it is provided in some States that if the parents of illegitimate children afterwards marry the children become legitimate. Also by statute the father may render an illegitimate child legitimate by receiving it into the family and treating it as a legitimate child. (Schoul. Dom. Rel., Sec. 226n.)

The mother is ordinarily obliged to maintain an illegitimate child. But now in most States a method is provided whereby the declared father may be compelled to provide for his illegitimate child.

In most States the illegitimate children inherit the mother's estate share and share alike with the legitimate children. (Stimson, Sec. 3151.) If the illegitimate child has children they inherit as if the parent were legitimate. If an illegitimate person dies intestate without issue, the estate goes to the surviving husband or wife, and if unmarried to the mother or next of kin. Stimson, Sec. 3154.)

sought to establish and perpetuate. No matter how many illegitimate children the great lord might have, his estate vested by law in a single legitimate male heir, and thus was the supremacy of an hereditary aristocracy made permanent.