The child may justify an assault in de fence of his parent ; 3 Bla. Com. 3.
If the father be without means to main tain and educate his children according to their future expectations in life, courts of equity will make an allowance for these pur poses out of the income of their estates, and, in an urgent case, will even break into the principal; Watts v. Steele, 19 Ala. N. S. 656; 1 P. Wins. 493; In re Bostwick, 4 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 100; Pearce v. Olney, 5 R. I. 269. The father is not bound, without some agree ment, to pay another for maintaining his children; 9 C. & P. 497; nor is he bound by their contracts, even for necessaries, un less an actual authority be proved, or a clear omission of his duty to furnish such neces saries; 20 Eng. L. & Eq. 281; Lefils v. Sugg, 15 Ark. 137 ; Eitel v. Walter, 2 Bradf. Surr. (N. Y.) 287 ; Keaton v. Davis, 18 Ga. 457; Ewell, Lead. Cas. 61, n.; Miller v. Davis, 45 Ill. App. 447 ; Manning v. Wells, 8 Misc. 646, 29 N. Y. Supp. 1044; or unless he suffers them to remain away with their mother, or forces them from home by hard usage; Stanton v. Willson, 3 Day (Conn.) 37, 3 Am. Dec. 255 ; but, especially in Amer ica, very slight evidence may sometimes warrant the confidence that a contract for the infant's necessaries is sanctioned by the father ; Tiffany, Per. & Dom. Rel. 233 ; thus he is held bound where he knows the cir cumstances and does not object; Swain v. Tyler, 26 Vt. 9; Thayer v. White, 12 Mete. (Mass.) 343; Fowlkes v. Baker, 29 Tex. 135, 94 Am. Dec. 270. Where the court takes away from the father the care and custody of the children, chancery directs mainte nance out of their own fortunes, whatever may be their father's circumstances; 2 Russ. 1; Macphers. Inf. 224. And if their be given to the mother by a decree of di vorce it has been held that the duty of sup porting them devolves on her ; Brow v. Brightman, 136 Mass. 187; but the father still remains liable; Pretzinger v. Pretzinger, 45 Ohio St. 452, 15 N. E. 471, 4 Am. St. Rep. 542. His obligation for support of minor children is not impaired by a decree of di vorce at the suit of his wife for his miscon duct which gives the custody of the children to her but which is silent as to their sup port; Spencer v. Spencer, 97 Minn. 56, 105 N. W. 483, 2 L. R. A. (N. S.) 851, 114 Am. St. Rep. 695, 7 Ann. Cas. 901; Keller v. St. Louis, 152 Mo. 596, 54 S; W. 438, 47 L. R. A. 391; Maddox v. Patterson, 80 Ga. 719, 6 S. E. 581; Dolloff v. Dolloff, 67 N. H. 512, 38
Atl. 19; Zilley v. Dunwiddie, 98 Wis. 428, 74 N. W. 126, 40 L. R. A. 579, 67 Am. St. Rep. 820; Gibson v. Gibson, 18 Wash. 489, 51 Pac. 1041, 40 L. R. A. 587 ; L. R. 3 Q. B. 559; contra, Dawson v. Dawson, 110 Ill. 279; Husband v. Husband, 67 Ind. 583, 33 Am. Rep. 107; Hall v. Green, 87 Me. 122, 32 Atl. 796, 47 Am. St. Rep. 311; McNees v. McNees, 97 Ky. 152, 30 S. W. 207; Brow v. Bright man, 136 Mass. 187; Rich v. Rich, 88 Hun 566, 34 N. Y. Supp. 854 ; Brown v. Smith, 19 R. I. 319, 33 Atl. 466, 30 L. R. A. 680. In a note to the Minnesota case first cited, where the cases are collected, it is said that they are "pretty evenly balanced, though more recent authorities seem to sustain the obli gation of the father" ; 2 L. R. A. (N. S.) 851, note.
Where the wife was separated from her husband by reason of his fault and had legal custody of the child, the husband was held liable for its support as a part of her rea sonable expenses, for which she could pledge his credit; L. R. 3 Q., B. 559.
The obligation of the father to maintain the child extends only to providing neces sary support, and ceases as soon as the child is able to provide for itself, or it becomes of age, hOwever wealthy the father may be; 2 Kent 190; unless the child becomes charge able to the public as a pauper ; 1 Ld. Raym. 699; or be physically or mentally incapable of self-support ; Mt. Pleasant Overseers v. Wilcox, 12 Pa. C. C. R. 447. The obligation also ceases during the minority of the child, if the child voluntarily abandons the home of his father, either for the purpose of seek ing his fortune in the world or to avoid pa rental discipline and restraint ; Angel v. Mc Lellan, 16 Mass. 28, 8 Am. Dec. 118 ; Hunt v. Thompson, 3 Scam. (Ill.) 179, 36 Am. Dec. 538. There is no legal obligation to educate the child, although some dicta and statements by textwriters are to the con trary; 1 Bla. Com. 150; 2 Kent 189; it is said• that the duty is only a moral one, and that there is no case which enforces such an obligation ; Tiff. Dom. Rel. 238; Huke v. Huke, 44 Mo. App. 308. See Schoul. Dom. Rel. 315. Where the child's fortune war rants a greater expenditure than the father's means will permit, or where the father is unable to support the child, an allowance to the father may be made by a court of equity out of the child's property for his maintenance and education; Coop. t. Eld. 52 ; In re Burke, 4 Sandf. Ch. (N. Y.) 617; Ela v. Brand, 63 N. H. 14; 2 Kent, Cora. 191.