¶1The Corporation Court of Alexandria had ordered the overseers of the poor to bind out the plaintiff to defendant. The Court instructed the jury, that the defendant having taken the boy under the order of the Court, although there was iio' indenture, the law raises an implied promise on the part of the defendant to comply with the terms of that order.
1 D.C. 5
Adams v. Miller
District of Columbia District Court
Decided April 15, 1801
District of Columbia District Court · decided 1801-04-15
<p>Assumpsit lies by the apprentice against his master*who takes the apprentice under an order of the Court to bind him out, although no indentures are executed.</p>
Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently June 1919
2 state decisions
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1801-04-15
View the full empirical analysis of this case →