Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

13 Ga. App. 458

Newton v. Cooper

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Decided September 17, 1913

Court of Appeals of Georgia · decided 1913-09-17

<p>Certiorari; from Fayette superior court — -Judge R. T. Daniel. May 23, 1913.</p>

Relies on Culberson v. Alabama Construction Co. · Savannah, Florida & Western Rwy. Co. v. Smith · Southern Railway Co. v. Flemister

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1913-09-17

How this case has been cited

Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently April 1956

9 state decisions

4019131920193019401950decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Pottle, J.

¶11. By abandonment of liis family a father loses parental control over his minor children and the right to their services and the proceeds of their labor. Civil Code, § 3021; Southern Railway Co. v. Flemister, 120 Ga. 524 (48 S. E. 160).

¶22. A mother who has the care and custody of a minor child who has been abandoned by his father is entitled to the services of the child and the proceeds of his labor. Savannah &c. Railway Co. v. Smith, 93 Ga. 742 (21 S. E. 157); Amos v. Atlanta &c. Railway Co., 104 Ga. 809 (31 S. E. 42).

¶33. Where a parent sues one who without his consent employed his minor-son, for the value of the son’s services while employed by 'the defendant, the latter has the right to set off the value of necessaries supplied by him to the minor during the employment. Culberson v. Alabama Construction Co., 127 Ga. 599 (56 S. E. 765, 9 L. R. A. (N. S.) 411, 9 Ann. Cas. 507).

¶44. Applying the foregoing principles to the testimony of the plaintiff as set forth in the answer of the justice of the peace, the verdict in her favor was warranted. Under her testimony the sum recovered was less than the value of the minor’s services after deducting the amount expended by the defendant for necessaries. There was no error in overruling the certiorari. ' " Judgment affirmed.

/13/gaapp/458 · .json · Public domain