¶1The father as the natural guardian of his children is bound to support them, and as an equivalent, the law gives him the custody of their persons during minority, and entitles him to their labor, or their wages, if they labor for others. In the present case, the earnings of the children, while working with him and ^supported by him, was his. If, therefore, that money alone [7;52 purchased and improved the lots, it was bis, and he could not by investing it in the name of his children, secure it for .them or himself, to the prejudice of his creditors. As to the -property men*780tioned in Licking county there is no proof. The judgment will he charged on the lots, if not satisfied, and a sale will he decreed for that purpose.
1 Wright 751
Bell v. Hallenback
Decided November 15, 1834
Ohio Supreme Court · decided 1834-11-15
<p>Child’s wages — invested in real estate — subject to father’s debts — fraud.</p> <p>A father has a right to the custody and earnings of his minor children, and if he invest their earnings in real estate, and take a title to them, the estate will be charged with the debts he then owed.</p> <p>If the father have other property to satisfy the judgment, he should so describe it that it may be reached.</p>
Decided 1834-11-15