
    Joseph Hapgood versus James M. Wesson.
    
      Oct. 4th.
    
    A minor over fourteen years of age having been bound an apprentice by his guardian, unjustifiably left the service of his master, and after the appointment of a new guardian the first one paid the master for necessary expenses incurred by him on account of the minor. It was held, that the first guardian could not main tain an action at law against the minor for the money so paid.
    This action was brought to recover thirty-six dollars of the defendant, a minor under the guardianship of one Maynard.
    At the trial in the Court of Common Pleas, before Strong J., it appeared that the defendant, in December, 1825, being of the age of fourteen years and upwards, was bound by indentures executed by the plaintiff, the defendant (who was then under the guardianship of the plaintiff), and one Wilder, as an apprentice to Wilder, until he should arrive at the age of twenty-one years ; which would be in 1830. He remained in the service of Wilder nine months, when he left him without any iustifiable cause. Subsequently to this, and after Maynard had been appointed guardian in the room of the plaintiff, Wildei claimed compensation for the injury he had sustained in consequence of the defendant’s having left his service. The plaintiff, upon Maynard’s promising to satisfy the claim when the amount should be ascertained, agreed with Wilder, in presence of Maynard, to refer the dispute to arbitration. The arbitrators awarded to Wilder the sum of forty dollars. Hapgood paid him thirty-six dollars, and the present action was brought to recover this sum. The sum awarded was exclusively for actual expenses incurred in the support of the defendant, above the value of his services, and not on account of the loss of future services.
    Upon the foregoing facts the judge directed a nonsuit; to which direction the plaintiff filed exceptions.
    
      J. Davis and Mien., in support of the exceptions,
    said the expenses were for necessaries for which the defendant was liable ; that the plaintiff was his guardian and bound to put him out as an apprentice and to covenant for him ; and that Wilder, when the defendant left his service, had a right to considei the contract as at an end, and to recover of the plaintiff these expenses.
    
      Newton and Draper, contra,
    
    contended that the claim ought to have been made in the Probate Court, on the settlement of a guardianship account.
   And the Court held this to be a good objection to the action ; and that there was no promise by the defendant, either express or implied, to pay the plaintiff’s demand.

Judgment of C. C. P. affirmed.  