Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 3.djvu/872

 DÛNKS v;'GeET. ' 8&5 �ît ddes not appear that the son was a minor, an3 tte decision rests on the relation of master aiid serVant, irather thafl on tKat of father and son. But in Beedy v. Reding, 16 Me. 362, a father was held liable in trover for wood taken at three dif- ferent times by his minor sons, under circuinstanees which jnstiûed the jury in finding that it was taken with the father's knowledge, the court saying : 'The minor sons of the defendant, being at the time members of his family, with the defendant's team, at three several times, hauled away the -plaintilï's wood. This could hardly have beeri done without the defendant's knowledge, if it had not his approbation. It was his duty to have restrained them from trespassing on hia neighbor's property. Qui non prohibit cum prohibere possit, jubet. And this maxim may be applied with great propriety to minor children residing with and under the control of their father.' See, aleo, Lashbrook v. Patten, 1 Dewall, 316. �"This principle, if applicable to the present case, is fatal to the position assumed by respondent. But it was earnestly argued by respondent's counsel that the evidence showed that Elmer H, Grey had been emancipated by his father and was therefore beyond his father's control, and a number of author- ities were cited in support of this position. It is, doubtless, true that the liability of the father for the acts of his minor son bas its foundation in the right of the father to the cus- tody and service of the minor, and it would follow that when, eitlier by "bad oonduet, by misfortune, or by contract, the rights and duties incident to the parental relation had been entirely abandoned or abrogated, the liability of the father would cease. It has, however, been pointed out by Mr. Scbouler, in his work on Domestic Eelations, 561, that • the significance of the word emancipation is not exact,' and it appears to be used by the courts sometimes to signify the mere gift by a father to his son of the latter's earnings, and sometimes to signify the complete severance, so far as legal rights and liabilities extend, of the parental relationship. Most of the cases cited by respondent involve the validity of a gift by a parent to his minor child of the latter's earnings. These cases, together with the other authorities examined by �v.3,no.l4:— 55 ����