
    Case No. 63.
    ADAMS v. MILLER.
    [1 Cranch, C. C. 5.]
    
    Circuit Court, District of Columbia.
    April, 1801.
    Appuextice — Assumpsit.
    Assumpsit lies by the apprentice against his master who takes the apprentice under an or* der of the court to bind him out, [and fails to comply with the terms of such order,] although no indentures are executed.
    At law. Assumpsit for not teaching the plaintili the trade of a silversmith, and to read and write, according to promise.
    The corporation court of Alexandria had ordered the overseers of the poor to bind out the plaintiff to defendant.
    
      
      [Reported by Hon. William Cranch, Chief Judge.]
    
   THE COURT instructed the jury, that the defendant having taken the boy under the order of the court, although there was no indenture, the law raises an implied promise on the part of the defendant to comply with the terms of that order.  