HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.
![handle is hein.slavery/ssactsengr0550 and id is 1 raw text is: REPORTS of' CASES Argued and Ruled at- NISI
PRIUS, in the COURTS OF KING'S BENCH
and COMMON PLEAS. From Easter Term, 39
George III., 1799, to Hilary Term, 41 George III.,
1801. By ISAAC 'ESPINASSE, of Gray's Inn,
Esq., Barrister-at-Law. Volume III. London, 1819.
[1] IN KING's BENCH, EASTER TERM, 39 GEo. III. [1799].
Sittings after Term, at Westminster.
May 9th.
STONE V. CARR.
(Tho' a husband is not bound to provide for the children of his wife by a former
husband, yet if he takes them into his house, and they become part of his family,
he shall be deemed to stand loco parentis, and be liable in a contract made by
his wife for their education.)
This was an action of assumpsit brought by the plaintiff, who was a schoolmaster,
for the education and maintenance of an infant child.
The child was the son of the defendant's wife, by a former husband. On the
defendant's marriage with the child's mother, he had taken possession of an house,
which she occupied with her children, and which house had belonged to the first
husband : the business she had carried on was continued ; and the children were
suffered to live with him as part of the family, and provided for by him while he
was at home.
[2] For the defendant it was given in evidence,-that he was gunner of an India
ship ; that during his absence on a voyage, the boy had been put out to school by
his mother to the plaintiff. His counsel then contended, that as he had never made
any contract or agreement with the plaintiff, he could not be charged, by reason of
any implied liability; and cited the case of Tubb v. Harrison, 4 Term Rep. 118;
wherein it is expressly decided, that a husband is not liable for the education or
maintenance of a child his wife may have had by a former husband.
Lord Kenyon, after referring to the case cited, said, the present was distinguishable
from that: there was no doubt, if a man married a woman having children by a
former husband, he might refuse to provide for them ; and under the authority of
The King v. Munden,* cited in that case of Tubb v. Harrison, he could not be com-
pelled to do it; but if a man did not so refuse to entertain them, and took the
children into his family, he then stood loco parentis as to them. Such was the case
here : he had so adopted them, and having gone abroad, and left them in the care
of his wife, he should hold him to be bound by her contracts made for their nainten-
ance and education. If she had any property by her first husband, the case was
* Rex v. Munden, 1 Stra. 190.
This was an order on the defendant to provide for his wife's mother ; and by the
opinion of the Court of King's Bench, the order was quashed. The statute which
enables an order of maintenance to be made to provide for relations, extending to
natural relations only.](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0550&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)