
    MEAD against MORRISON.
    OS CERTIORARI.
    A parent after signing an indenture of his son’s apprenticeship, may not sue for his services to the master. The indenture may bind the father, although void as to the son.
    The action below was brought by Henry I. Morrison, against Robert Mead. The principal item in the demand of Morrison against Mead, was to labor done and performed from April, 1805, till December, 1809, by Abraham, forty-five dols. An indenture of apprenticeship was given in evidence by the defendant below, Mead, which indenture was sent up by the justice, with the papers in the cause. By this indenture, Abraham Morrison, the son of Henry I. Morrison, the plaintiff below, had bound himself an apprentice, by and with the consent of his father, to Robert Mead, during the time embraced by the before mentioned item in the state of demand. The indenture was signed both by the father and son.
    The counsel for the plaintiff in error, moved to reverse the judgment of the justice, on this ground, that the father, after binding his son an apprentice to a master, cannot, at his election rescind the contract, [f ] and bring an action ag'ainst the master for the work and labor of his son.
   Pennington, J.

I do not consider the indenture as binding by the father, but that the son bound himself by the consent of the father. But I think that the assent of the father, by his signature to the instrument, was at all events complete evidence that he assented to [533] his son living with the master in the capacity of an apprentice, and repels the presumption of a contract for wages.

By the Court.

We are all of opinion, that the action below cannot be maintained; although it may be that the indenture is void as it respects the apprentice himself, for the want of inserting the age of the apprentice in the indenture, yet it is only void as against the apprentice. But suppose it was wholly void as an indenture, yet it is complete evidence of the assent of the father to the son’s living with the defendant below in the capacity of an apprentice. We are therefore of opinion, that the judgment below is founded in error.

Let it be reversed.  