
    [*] TIDD against HOLCOMB.
    This was an action of assumpsit, brought to recover $3 per week for the board and care, as a physician, of one Samuel Willet, at the request of the defendant. At the trial of the cause at the Hunterdon Circuit, October, 1810, before the Chief Justice, a verdict was taken for the plaintiff, subject to the opinion of the court, on the state of facts, on which the following is the substance:
    The father of Willet (he being an infant) hired him on the 9th November, 1807, to Holcomb for a year, on wages, at fifty-four dollars per year; that the boy lived with and worked for Holcomb till the June following, when he was attacked with a white swelling in his leg, very bad; that in August, Holcomb agreed with the plaintiff, Tidd, a physician, to take the boy to his house, and board and doctor him at $3 per week, no time was mentioned. Accordingly, Holcomb sent the boy to Tidd, his leg was then very bad; that Tidd had boarded and doctored him with great care and attention ever since. Some time after the boy had been at Tidd’s, Holcomb came to Tidd’s house, when Tidd, in conversation, advised Holcomb to give the boy up and throw him on the town; and told him if he would say he [639] would do it, he, Tidd, would know where to get his pay from; that Holcomb was under no legal obligation to maintain the boy. But Holcomb replied that he would keep him the year out that he had hired him for; that on the 16th November, 1808, about the time that the year expired, Holcomb wrote the following letter to Tidd:—
    /’ Eriend Jacob Tidd, please to apply to the town for Samuel Willet, as I can’t be accountable any longer — therefore, I shall give him up to your charge, his father is come forward, and I cannot do any thing more after this time.
    “ Erom your friend,
    “JOHN HOLCOMB.
    [f] “ N. B. Please to send answer as soon as possible.”
    This letter was sent by the father of the boy; who resided in Pennsylvania; Tidd told the bearer of the letter, on the delivery of it, that Holcomb must come and take the boy away. Tidd afterwards applied to the overseers of the poor to take charge of the boy, who refused to do anything for his relief. Tidd informed Holcomb of this, on which Holcomb requested him to apply again, and said that he would carry it on at his own expense; that some proceedings were had against the township at the expense of Holcomb; that Holcomb had offered Tidd to pay him up to the date of the letter, 16th November, 1808, on principles of humanity. That Tidd refused to receive it.
    
      Maxwell, for the plaintiff.
    Holcomb sent the boy to Tidd at 3 dollars per week. Tidd did not know that the boy was hired by Holcomb, nor the connection between them. It was a fair regular transaction; a clear explicit contract. Tidd was to board and doctor the boy, and Holcomb to pay him three dollars per week for it. Holcomb could not put an end to the contract without taking the boy away; Tidd was right in keeping him at the expense of Holcomb.
    The Attorney-General, contra.
    The defendant does not refuse (o pay for the time the boy was hired to him; the boy was no longer in his service; if answerable at all, he was under no obligation to maintain the boy after that time; and of this he gave full notice to Tidd ; and this was also authorized by an understanding between them.
    
      Hunter, on the same side.
    Tidd himself proposed to Holcomb to give the boy up to the town, alleging that in such case he knew where to get his money. Holcomb is not liable beyond the year that the boy was hired to him.
    [*]
    
      Ewing, in reply.
    There was a fair and reasonable contract between the parties — a proposal on one side, and an acceptance on the other. There is no doubt about, or obscurity in the contract. This contract was to board and doctor the boy for an indefinite period of time, for which Holcomb was to pay him the price agreed on. Tidd was not bound to encounter the trouble and expense of applying to the overseers of the poor; nor take upon himself the risk of their refusal.
   [640]

By the Court.

Mr. Holcomb having put a sick

boy into Dr. Tidd’s care to board and attend him at a stipulated price per week, and this for an indefinite period of time, he cannot slip out of this contract, and leave the doctor burdened with the boy. Tidd had nothing to do with the town, or the overseers of the poor. Holcomb ought to have taken the boy away, or provided for him. It could not be expected that Tidd could turn a sick lame boy into the street. Tidd’s advice to Holcomb to put the boy on the town was not taken, but refused on the part of Holcomb. But what was it ? Not that Tidd should put the boy on the town, but that Holcomb should do it. Tidd might reasonably conclude that if the boy was on the town, that he would be employed in the same manner as he then was; and it was full as reasonable that the town should maintain the boy, as Holcomb.

We think, therefore, that the plaintiff is entitled to judgment for the whole time demanded.

Judgment for plaintiff.  