
    Van Valkinburgh against Watson and Watson.
    A parent is bound to provide his infant children with necessaries, and if he neglect to do so, a third person may supply them, and charge the pa5rent with the amount.
    But such third •person must take notice of what is neeessa ry for the infant, according to his situation in life, and where the", infant lives with bis parent, and is provided for by hi,ro, a per son furnishing necessaries cannot charge the parent.
    , IN ERROR, on certio.rari to a- justice’s'courts: • .
    The defendants in error brought,an action1 in the coui't below against the plaintiff'ih error, for necessaries furnished by them, to his" infant son. On the trial it appeared that the son-of the-defendant below came to1 the store of- the plaintiffs below, and purchased a coat lor himself; but there was no evidence that it was done with his father’s consent. ; The defendant proved that? his son lived in his family, and was-comfortably and. decentlyelóthéd, according to his circumstances. A. verdict and judgment wpre given for the plaintiffs in the. court below.- :
   Per Curiam.

-A.parent is- under a natural .obligation- to furnish necessaries for his infant children; and if-the parent "negleet that duty, any other person who ^supplies such nebessaries is deemed to have conferred a benefit on the delinquent parent, for which the law raises an implied' promise to pay; on the part of the parent. But what is actually necessary will depend on - the precise situation- of the infant, and- which the party .giving'1 the-credit must be acquainted with; at his peril. (Simpson v. Robertson, 1 Esp. Rep. 17., Ford v. Fothergill, Id. 211.) In the ease of Bainbridge v. Pickering, (2Wm. Black. Rep. 1325.,) Gould, J. says, with great propriety, No man shall take upoti him to dictate to a parent w-hat clothing the child shall wear, at what time they shall1 be purchased; or of whom; all. that must be leftto the discretion-of the father or mother,” Where the infant is sub potestate parentis,- there -must be a clear and palpable omission of duty, in that respect, on the part of the parent, in order to authorize any other person to act for, and charge the1 expense to, the parent. In' this case, there is no ground to charge the father with any neglect of duty, in providing necessaries for his child, and the judgment must be reversed.

Judgment reversed.  