(and which may be taken for a sample, in all essential respects, of the general law in the several states on the subject,) (a) that infants, if males, under twenty-one, and if unmarried females, under eighteen years of age, may be bound by indenture of their own free will, and by their own act, with the consent of their father, or mother, or guardian, or testamentary executors; or by the overseers of the poor, or two justices, or a judge, as the case may be, to a term of service, as clerk, apprentice, or servant, in any profession, trade, or employment, until the age of twenty-one years if a male, or until eighteen years of age if a female, or for a shorter time. In all indentures, by the officers of the city or town, binding poor children as apprentices or servants, a covenant must be inserted to teach the apprentice to read and write, and if a male, the general rules of arithmetic; and the overseers of the poor are constituted the guardians of every such indented servant. (b)1 The age of the infant must

(a) Statute of Illinois, of 1st of June, 1827; of Indiana, of Feb. 15, 1818, though it would seem, by the words of the last act, that the infant might bind himself an apprentice of his own free will, without any other consent. Elmer's New Jersey Digest, 12, 410. R. S. N. J. 1847, p. 370. Purdon's Penn. Dig. 58. Virginia Revised Code, edit. 1814, vol. i. p. 240. Statutes of Ohio, Chase's edit. vol. iii. 1876. Massachusetts Revised Statutes, 1836. Revised Code of Mississippi, edit. 1822, p. 393. Revised Statutes of Missouri, 1835, p. 66. Revised Statutes of Vermont, 1839, p. 344. Dorsey's Statutory Testamentary Law of Maryland, 1838, p. 30. Some of the statutes are much more provisional than others, and they generally require the apprentice to be taught to read, write, and cipher. In some of the states there seems to be no provision, except for binding out poor children and orphans. In Virginia, orphan boys, bound apprentices, are to be taught common arithmetic; but by the act of 1804, ch. 60, black or mulatto orphans were not to be taught reading, writing, or arithmetic.

(b) This clause, relative to instruction, was first directed in New York, by the statute of 1788, to be inserted in the indenture, and it was not required by the English statutes. In Connecticut, the officers or proprietors of factories, and all manufacturing establishments, are required to have all the children employed therein, whether bound by indenture or otherwise, taught to read and write, and cipher, and made to attend public worship, and to take due care of their morals; and they are made subject to the visitation of the civil authorities in these respects, and are liable to fine, and to have the apprentices discharged, if found in default. Statutes of Connecticut, 1838, p. 415.

1 It has been declared that an apprenticeship cannot be created except by writing. Peters v. Lord, 18 Conn. R. 337. As to the effect of the father's contract in the indentures, see Van Dorn v. Young, 13 Barb. R. 286.

The indentures will not be rendered invalid by a failure to specify the trade, employ

be inserted in the indenture, and the consent of the father or guardian must be signified by a certificate at the end of, or indorsed upon, the indenture. (a) For refusal to serve and work, infants are liable to be imprisoned in jail until they shall be willing to serve as such apprentices or servants; and also to serve double the time they had wrongfully withdrawn themselves from service; provided the same does not extend beyond three years next after the end of the original term of service. They are also liable to be imprisoned in some house of correction, not exceeding a month, for ill-behavior or any misdemeanor. (b) Infants coming from beyond sea may bind themselves to service until the age of twenty-one, and even beyond it, provided it be to raise money for the payment of their passage, and the term of such service does not exceed one year. (c) Grievances of the

apprentice or servant, arising from ill-usage on the part *263 of the master, or grievances of the master arising from a bad apprentice, are to be redressed in the general sessions of the peace, or by any two justices of the peace, who have power to annul the contract, and discharge the apprentice, or imprison him, if he should be in the wrong. (d) It is further specially and justly provided, that no person shall take from any journeyman or apprentice any contract or agreement, that after his term of service expired he shall not set up his trade, profession, or employment in any particular place; nor shall any money or other thing be exacted from any journeyman or apprentice, in restraint of the place of exercising his trade. (e)

The statute of New York (of which I have given the material provisions) contains the substance of the English statute law on the subject, and the English decisions are mostly applicable. The infant himself must be a party to the indenture, except in the special case of an apprentice who is chargeable as

(a) New York Revised Statutes, vol. ii. pp. 154, 155, sec. 3, 8, 10; p. 158, sec. 27. (b) Ibid. pp. 158, 159, sec. 28, 29, 30, 31.

(c) N. Y. Revised Statutes, vol. ii. p. 156, sec. 12.

(d) Ibid. p. 159, sec. 32.

(e) Ibid. p. 160, sec. 39, 40.

ment or profession in which the infant is to be instructed. Fowler v. Hollenbeck, 9 Barb.

a pauper. The father has no authority under the statute (and) the latter cases say he has no authority even at common law) to bind his infant son an apprentice, without his assent; and the infant cannot be bound by an act merely in pais, and if he be not a party to the deed, he is not bound. (a) It is a settled principle of the English and American law, that the relation of master and apprentice cannot be created, and the corresponding rights and duties of the parent transferred to a master, except by deed. (b) The English statute law as to binding out minors as apprentices, to learn some useful art, trade, or 264 calling, has probably been very generally adopted in this country, with some local variations, and with the settled limitation that both parent or guardian and infant (except the case of paupers) must signify their assent by being parties to the deed. (c) The general rule is, that male infants may be bound till their arrival at the age of twenty-one, but females only

(a) The King v. Inhabitants of Cromford, 8 East's Rep. 25. The King v. Inhabitants of Arnesby, 3 Barnew. & Ald. 584. In the matter of M'Dowles, 8 Johns. Rep. 328. Stringfield v. Heiskell, 2 Yerger's Tenn. Rep. 546. Pierce v. Messenburgh, 4 Leigh's Rep. 493. Harney v. Owen, 4 Blackf. Ind. Rep. 337. Balch v. Smith, 12 N. H. Rep. 438. In Maryland, the father appears to have the discretion to bind out his child as an apprentice, on reasonable terms, without any consent on the part of the child. Dorsey's Statutory Testamentary Law of Maryland, 1838, p. 30.

(b) Castor v. Aicles, 1 Salk. Rep. 68. King v. Inhabitants of Bow, 4 Maule & Selw. 383. Squire v. Whipple, 1 Vermont Rep. 69. Commonwealth v. Wilbanks, 10 Serg. & Rawle, 416. The statute of 5 Eliz. required the binding to be by inden

ture.

(c) Statutes of Connecticut, 1838, p. 413. In North Carolina, under the acts of 1762, 1796, and 1800, and revised and amended in Revised Statutes of N. C. 1837, vol. i. the county court may bind out poor orphan children and illegitimate children until 21 years of age in males, and 18 in females, as apprentices, and the master is to teach them to read and write, and, at the expiration of the apprenticeship, to make them an allowance. The binding must be by indenture; and the statute had in view the English regulations in the statutes of 5 & 43 Eliz. Though all the regulations be not precisely followed, the deed is only voidable by the parties. This is the general rule. Petersdorff's Abr. tit. Apprentice, ch. 3, B.; 13 Johns. Rep. 245; nor does a mere abandonment of service by the apprentice avoid it. Down v. Davis, 4 Dev. Rep. 64. This is also the English rule. 6 Mod. Rep. 69. 6 Term Rep. 652. 16 East's Rep. 13, 27. 3 Maule & Selw. 189.

1 Though the indentures be void for informality, yet if the parties have lived together as master and servant, neither party can have a claim against the other beyond the condition of the indentures. Maltby v. Harwood, 12 Barb. R. 478.

till their arrival at the age of eighteen. (a) In Pennsylvania, though infants may be bound to apprenticeship under the usual checks, (b) yet it has been held (c) that an infant could not be bound by his father or guardian, as a servant to another; while in Massachusetts their statute law concerning apprentices does not make void all contracts binding the minor to service that are not made in conformity to the statute. It has been held (d) that the father may, at common law, bind his infant son to service, and the contract will be good, independent of the statute. The doctrine is contrary to the English law, and to the construction of the statute of New York, and to the rule in Pennsylvania; and it has been questioned, in the case of the United States v. Bainbridge. (e) In was decided in that last case that the father could not bind his infant son, without his consent, to military service, and that where his enlistment has been held valid, it was by force of the statute authority of the United States. In Louisiana, a minor may be bound to serve as an apprentice to learn some art or trade, with the consent of the parent, or tutor, or parish judge; and the time expires at the age of eighteen in males, and fifteen in females. The contract is made before a notary, and read to, and signed by the parties. (f) The master

(a) 4 Greenleaf's Rep. 36, 40. Revised Laws of Illinois, edit. 1833, p. 68. This is the rule in Ohio, and the indenture of service is to be executed by the father, or in case of his death or incapacity, by the mother, or by guardians appointed for infants under 12 or 14, or by the trustees of the town, as the case may be; and it does not seem to require that the infant should join the execution of the indenture. Statutes of Ohio, 1824. In Connecticut, the statute requires that the minor's assent should be expressed in the indenture, by subscribing the same, when bound by the parent or guardian, as an apprentice, to learn some trade or profession. Males may be bound till 21, and females till 18. Revised Statutes of Connecticut, 1821. If the guardian. in Ohio, binds out the infant until 18 or 21, the court of common pleas must approve of the terms. Chase's Statutes of Ohio, vol. ii. p. 1318. Under the English statute of 5 Eliz., an indenture of apprenticeship, for a less period than seven years, is voidable at the election of the parties, and not otherwise. Rex v. Inhabitants of St. Nicholas, Burr. Sett. Cas. 91. Gray v. Cookson, 16 East's Rep. 13. (b) Commonwealth v. Vanlear, 1 Serg. & Rawle, 248. 1 Ashmead's Rep. 123. Guthrie v. Murphy, 4 Watts, 80. (c) Respublica v. Keppele, 2 Dall. Rep. 197. But see Browne, 275.

(d) Day v. Everett, 7 Mass. Rep. 145.

(e) 1 Mason's Rep. 71.

(f) Civil Code of Louisiana, art. 158-167.

Commonwealth v. Moore, Purdon's Dig. 58, 60. contra, 1 S. & R. 252. 1

may correct his apprentice, with moderation, for negligence or misbehavior. (a) Whether an indented apprentice can be assigned by one master to another, is a question *265 which does not seem to have been definitely settled. (b)' It was concluded, in the case of Nickerson v. Howard, (c) that such an assignment might be good, by way of covenant between the masters, though not as an assignment to pass an interest in the apprentice. As was observed by Lord Mansfield, (d) though an apprentice be not strictly assignable nor transmissible, yet if he continue with his new master, with the consent of all parties, and his own, it is a continuation of the apprenticeship. The master is entitled to the wages and fruit of the personal labor of

(a) Ibid. Commonwealth v. Baird, 1 Ashmead's Penn. Rep. 267, S. P. (b) The better doctrine is, that an apprentice cannot, without his consent, be transferred or assigned by his master. Haley v. Taylor, 3 Dana's Ken. Rep. 222. But in Pennsylvania, by statute, executors and administrators, and even the master, may, under certain circumstances, assign over the apprentice. Purdon's Dig. 60. The New York statute allows the contract made by an infant coming from a foreign country, and binding himself to service, to be assigned to the master, under certain checks; and generally, the contracts for service as clerk, apprentice or otherwise, may be assigned upon the death of the master, by his executors or administrators, with the assent of the apprentice, and without it, under the orders of the general sessions of the peace. N. Y. Revised Statutes. vol. ii. p. 156, sec. 14, p. 160, sec. 41, 42. The Massachusetts Revised Statutes of 1836, (and which appear to me to be an excellent sample of clear, brief, temperate, and judicious codification,) declare that minors may be bound as apprentices or servants, females until 18, or marriage, and males until 21, by the father; or if he be dead or incompetent, by the mother or lawful guardian, and if illegitimate, by the mother. If they have no competent parent or guardian, they may bind themselves, with the approbation of the selectmen of the town. Minors above 14 are to testify their assent by signing the indenture.2 The overseers of the poor may bind the children of paupers. The court may discharge the apprentice from his service, or the master from his contract, for good cause. The death of the master discharges the apprenticeship, and the right of the father to assign or contract for the services of his children during their minority is saved.

(c) 19 Johns. Rep. 113. See, also, Caister v. Eccles, 1 Lord Raym. 683. In the case of the Commonwealth v. Vanlear, 1 Serg. & Rawle, 248, the assent of both father and apprentice was held to be requisite under the statute law of Pennsylvania, to a valid assignment of the articles of apprenticeship.

(d) The King v. The Inhabitants of Stockland, Doug. Rep. 70.

1 The trust reposed in the master is a personal trust, which cannot be assigned. Tucker v. Magee, 18 Ala. 99. Futrell v. Vann, 8 Ired. 402.

2 The mere signature is not enough. The minor's consent must also be distinctly expressed in the indentures. Harper v. Gilbert, 5 Cush. 417.