
    Poindexter v. Wilton and Others.
    Friday, March 20th, 1812.
    Apprenticeship—Action on Indenture.—An action in behalf of an apprentice, upon his indenture of apprenticeship, ought not to be brought in the name of the overseers of the poor, but in his own name
    
    In this case an action for covenant broken was brought against the appellant, in the county court of Bedford, “for the benefit of John Gowing,” in the name of William Wilton, James Ayers and others, overseers of the poor of said county, successors of David Saunders and others. The declaration charged, that, on the ISth day of Ma3r, 1793, Thomas Leftwich and Charles Moorman, then acting in the office of overseers of the poor for the county aforesaid, by a certain indenture sealed with their seals, &c., bound the said John Gowing until he should arrive at the age of twenty-one years; “and the said Samuel Poindexter covenanted and agreed with the said Thomas Eeftwich and Charles Moor-man, then acting as overseers of the poor, to learn the said John Gowiug the carpenter’s trade, and also to learn him to write, and read the Bible, and common arithmetic, including the *rule of three; and, during his apprenticeship, to find him sufficient diet, clothing, lodging, and washing; and, at the expiration of his apprenticeship, to' pay him his freedom dues according to law;” and that the said Samuel Poindexter had altogether broken his said covenant in every particular. 
    
    The defendant plea’ded that he had not broken his covenant. A general verdict was found for the plaintiffs, and damages were assessed to two hundred dollars, judgment was entered accordingly, and, on appeal, affirmed by the district court; whereupon the defendant appealed to this court.
    
      
      Apprenticeship—Action on Indenture—In Whose NameAction Should Be Brought.—Covenant will not lie in the name of an apprentice on an indenture of apprenticeship entered into by the overseers of the poor without any previous order of court binding out the apprentice; such indenture is not a statutory deed; and therefore, covenant can only be maintained on it in the name of the overseers who are the parties to it. Bulloch; v. Sebrell, 6 Leigh 560, 561, citing the principal case. See monographic note on “Infants” appended to Caperton v. Gregory, 11 Gratt. 505; monographic note on “Covenant, The Action of” appended to Lee v. Cooke, 1 Wash. 306.
    
    
      
      Note. As to the proper form of an indenture of apprenticeship, see Hening’s Justice, 2d ed. p. 66, 67.,
    
    
      
      Note. The indenture in this case appears to bave been defective. The covenant on the part of Poindexter should have been, “to and with the said overseers of the poor,” &c. “and to and with the said John Gowing.” &c. See Hening’s Justice, p. 67.—Note in Original Edition.
    
   Friday, March 20th, 1812,

JUDGE BROOKE

reported the court’s opinion to be, (without deciding any other point in the cause,) that the appellees could not maintain this action. The judgments of both the courts below were, therefore, reversed, and judgment was'entered for the appellant.  