Rice v. Breheny

Counsel

McCaulley, for the defendant, objected to the right of the plaintiff to recover for these expenses and attention, without proof of an express promise by the defendant to pay for them, as the law would not imply a promise under the circumstances, and especially under the relation in which the apprentice stood to the plaintiff. An express promise should therefore be proved, or at least, that the defendant authorized or requested the plaintiff to take care of the apprentice, and to incur the trouble and expenses proved on account of his illness. Dunbar v. Williams, 10 Johns. 249. Atkins et al. v. Banwell et al., 2 East. 505. Gordon, for the plaintiff: The cases cited were not like the present, for in those cases there was no notice as in this, to the master, of the illness of his apprentice, and a total neglect on his part after receiving such notice, to take him home, or to make any provision for him during his illness. The defendant in the present case having neglected to do either after receiving such notice, certainly did not dissent, and must therefore be presumed to have assented to the plaintiff's making the proper and necessary provision for him under the circumstances.