Contract upon a promissory note for $129, dated April 22, 1882, payable to the plaintiff or order, and signed by the defendant. Answer, want of consideration. Trial in the Superior Court, before Mason, J., who allowed a bill of exceptions, in substance as follows:

On April 16, 1880, the defendant, the defendant’s son, and one John L. Connolly entered into a written agreement, not under seal, by which the defendant bound his son, with his assent, to Connolly, until March 1, 1883, to learn the art of wood-engraving, and Connolly agreed to teach him the art, and to pay him a certain sum weekly after the first six months. On the same day, the defendant and Connolly executed, each to the other, bonds in the sum of $200, to secure performance of the agreement.

In March, 1881, Connolly sold his wood-engraving establishment to the plaintiff, and moved out of the State. The son had remained with Connolly to this time, and afterwards remained with the plaintiff, who paid him in accordance with the articles of apprenticeship. The son expressed a willingness, at the suggestion of the plaintiff, to continue with the plaintiff for the full unexpired balance of the term of apprenticeship, and his father also desired him to remain and work out his full time and learn engraving. On October 25, 1881, the defendant signed the following, which was written by the plaintiff on the back of the original agreement: “ Boston, October 25, 1881. I hereby continue the within agreement and indenture with Albert D. Crombie, successor to John L. Connolly, for the full unexpired balance of the term of apprenticeship.”

The plaintiff testified that, when the continuance was spoken of between himself and the son, he told the latter it would be well for his parents or father to come in, “ so that there would be something definite or binding about it. I asked the son to have his father come in and see me, and talk the matter over and have it fixed, and finally he did come in, on the date at which the paper was signed, and we talked the matter over in the presence of the son. I sent by the son and told him to come, and we came to this arrangement, and I wrote the indorsement on the back of the agreement which had been passed between Connolly and McGrath.”

The son then continued with the plaintiff until April 22, 1882, the date of the note declared on, when he left the plaintiff, who released him from any further obligation to remain; the defendant having given the note declared on in consideration of such release.

At the same time that the note declared on was delivered by the defendant to the plaintiff, the plaintiff delivered to the defendant’s son a writing, signed by the plaintiff, of which the following is a copy: “ Boston, April 22, 1882. This is to certify that I have released Master Wm. F. McGrath from the terms of his apprenticeship to me, and that he is free to engage with any other party.”

…

Citation profile

Relationships

How this case has been treated — in progress