The father may maintain an action for the seduction of his daughter, or for any injury to the person of his child, so long as he has a right to its services; 2 M. & W. 539; Lee v. Hodges, 13 Gratt. (Va.) 726; Bolton v. Miller, 6 Ind. 262; Bayles v. Burgard, 48 Ill. App. 371; and may even be justified in committing a homicide in protecting his child; 1 Bla. Corn. 450; and the fact that a child by her father as next friend has recov ered damages for a personal injury does not bar a subsequent action by him for loss of service occasioned by the same injury ; Wil ton v. R. Co., 125 Mass. 130; Texas & P. It. Co. v. Morin, 66 Tex. 225, 18 S. W. 503. The authorities are not uniform as to whether the right of the father to recover for a tort committed against the child is to be limited to the theory of loss of service and therefore based entirely upon the doctrine of an im plied relation of master and servant. Such would seem to be the English rule, which gives no remedy, even for expenses, when the child is of such tender age as to be incapable of service; 7 D. & R. 133. Some American cases follow the same 'principle; Matthews v. R. Co., 26 Mo. App. 75 ; Whitaker v. War ren, 60 N. H. 20, 49 Am. Rep. 302; but the trend of the authorities Is otherwise, and as was said by the Circuit Court of Appeals, in a case of injury to a child of five years of age, "they approve a more reasonable doc trine, and, basing the right of action on the parental relation instead of that of master and servant, allow the father to recover his consequential loss, irrespective of the age of the minor ;" Netherland-American Steam Nay. Co. v. Hollander, 8 C. C. A. 169, 59 Fed. 417; Griming v. R. Co., 109 N. Y. 95, 16 N. E. 65 ; Sykes v. Lawlor, 49 Cal. 236 ; Clark v. Bayer, 32 Ohio St. 299, 30 Am. Rep. 593 ; and see SEDUCTION; ENTICE.
As a general rule the mother of an ille gitimate cannot recover damages for his death, under a statute giving a right of ac tion to the relatives or representatives of one killed through the negligence of an other ; 2 Ont. 658; Marshall v. R. Co., 46 Fed. 269. See, contra, Marshall v. R. Co., 120 Mo. 275, 25 S. W. 179. See BASTARD.
Right to earnings of the child. Generally, the father is entitled to the services or earn ings of his children during their minority, so long as they remain members of his family; Plummer v. Webb, 4 Mas. 380, Fed. Cas. No. 11,233; Emery v. Kempton, 2 Gray (Mass.) 257 ; Stovall v. Johnson, 17 Ala. 14; 1 Bla. Com. 453 ; Allen v. Allen, 60 Mich. 635, 27 N. W. 702; but he may relinquish this right in favor of his children ; Burlingame v. Bur lingame, 7 Cow. (N. Y.) 92; Lyon v. Bolling, 14 Ala. 753, 48 Am. Dec. 122; Bray v. Wheel er, 29 Vt. 514; Kauffelt v. Moderwell, 21 Pa. 222 ; and he will be presumed to have thus relinquished this right if he abandoned or neglects to support and educate his children ; Canovar v. Cooper, 3 Barb. (N. Y.) 115; Nightingale v. Withington, 15 Mass. 272, 8 Am. Dec. 101; Clay v. Shirley, 65 N. H. 644, 23 AU. 521; Guardianship of Vance, 92 Cal. 195, 28 Pac. 229 ; but where a father verbal ly agrees that his daughter shall reside in a stranger's house as a servant, he does not thereby surrender his parental control, so as to bar his right to recover for her seduction; Mohry v. Hoffman, 86 Pa. 358. An infant
husband is entitled to his own wages, so far as necessary for the support of himself and family, although he married without his fa ther's consent; Corn. v. Graham, 157 Mass. 73, 31 N. E. 706, 16 L. R. A. 578, 34 Am. St. Rep. 255.
The emancipation of a minor may be prov ed by the act of the father in allowing him to draw his own wages, as well as by other acts, and no proof of a formal contract is necessary; Haugh, Ketcham & Co. I. W. v. Duncan, 2 Ind. App. 264, 28 N..E. 334. Liv ing at home does not interfere with emanci pation ; Wilson v. McMillan, 62 Ga. 16, 35 Am. Rep. 115; and the wages of an infant emancipated by his parent, though living at home, are not subject to claims of father's creditors; Wisner v. Osborne, 64 N. J. Eq. 614, 55 Ad 51; Costello v. Brewing Co., 52 N. J. Eq. 557, 30 Atl. 682 ; (if there be no fraud; Elfelt v. Hinch, 5 Or. 255); Atwood v. Holcomb, 39 Conu. 270, 12 Am. Rep. 386 ; Stanley v. Bank, 115 N. Y. 122, 22 N. E. 29 ; Wambold v. Vick, 50 Wis. 456, 7 N. W. 438; contra, Stumbaugh v. Anderson, 46 Kan. 541, 26 Pac. 1045, 26 Am. St. Rep. 121; Bell v. Hallenback, 1 Wright (Ohio) 751.
As to his right to earnings and emancipa tion, see also Benson v. Remington, 2 Mass. 113; Atwood v. Holcomb, 39 Conu. 270, 12 Am. Rep. 386, 2 Am. L. Reg. (N. S.) 715, with note by Judge Redfield; White v. Henry, 24 Me. 531; Aldrich v. Bennett, 63 N. H. 415, 56 Am. Rep. 529. The father, as such, has no claim to any property ac quired by the child other than earnings ; Banks v. Conant, 14 Allen (Mass.) 497.
An agreement of the father, by which his minor child is put out to service, ceases to be binding upon the child after the fa ther's death, unless made by indentures of apprenticeship ; Campbell v. Cooper, 34 N. H. 49 ; De Garnett v. Harper, 45 Mo. App. 415; State v. Reuff, 29 W. Va. 751, 2 S. E. 801, 6 Am. St. Rep. 676. The power of the father ceases on the arrival of his children at the age of twenty-one; though if after that age they continue to live in the father's family, they will not be allowed to recover for their services to him upon an implied promise of payment; Munger v. Munger, 33 N. H. 581; Guenther v. Birkicht's Adm'r, 22 Mo. 439; House v. House, 6 Ind. 60 ; the presumption being that such services are gratuitous, but this may be rebutted; Grant v. Grant, 109 N. C. 710, 14 S. E. 90; but see Graves v. Dav enport, 50 Fed. 881; McLaughlin v. Mc Laughlin, 145 Pa. 582, 23 Atl. 400.
A stepfather is not bound to support and educate his stepchildren; In re Besondy, 32 Minn. 385, 20 N. W. 366, 50 Am. Rep. 579; nor is he entitled to their custody, labor, or earnings, unless he assumes the relation of parent ; Brush v. Blanchard, 18 Ill. 46 ; v. Hutchinson, 3 N. Y. 312, 53 Am. Dec. 301; Mull v. Walker, 100 N. C. 46, 6 S. B. 685 ; Gerber v. Bauerline, 17 Or. 115, 19 Pac. 849; but see Ela v. Brand, 63 N. H. 14.
See also Schouler ; Tiffany; Reeve, Dom. Rel.; EMANCIPATION ; KIDNAPPING; CHILD ; INFANT.
Kindred in the direct as cending line. See 2 Bouv. Inst. n. 1955. For a discussion of the subject in connection with citizenship, see 2 Kent 49 ; Morse, Cit izenship; CITIZEN ; NATURALIZATION.