We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.
Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.
CONTRACTS WITH INFANTS
175
And while it has been said that a contract of the infant beneficial in its character may be enforced,187 nevertheless neither in tills country nor in England will the contract for personal services of the infant be deemed such a contract.188
infant, because of immaturity, is deemed to be under the protection of the court as its ward.”
Vent v. Osgood (1837), 36 Mass. 572; Ide v. Brown (1904), 178 N. Y. 26; 70 N. E. 101.
See also: Gordon v. Barr (1917), N. Y. Law Journal, Jan 20. Hendrick, J.: “In this motion to restrain defendants from ‘rendering services as artists or theatrical performers,’ the complaint alleges that defendants have broken their contract and threaten to continue ‘to do the various things and matters in contravention of the said agreement.’ Defendants state in an affidavit that they were only twenty years of age when they signed the contract, but infancy is not alleged as a defense. Plaintiff is a ‘ manager ’ and acts as an intermediary between theatrical performers and their employers. Defendants are twin sisters and perform dancing acts and sing at music halls and cabarets. They claim that their services are neither ‘unique, extraordinary or peculiar’ and,
therefore, if they have broken the contract, plaintiff has an adequate remedy at law, and cite Hammerstein v. Mann, 122 Supp. 278; Lasky Feature Co. v. Suratt & Fox Film Corp’n, 154 Supp. 974. They also argue that as plaintiff was not a theatrical manager, but simply had an interest in their compensation, he has an ample legal remedy. To this point they cite Solman v. Arcaro, 129 N. Y. Supp. 689. I do not think that the remedy of injunction can be invoked unless plaintiff makes a case reasonably clear and in my opinion plaintiff’s case lacks the usual requisites. The motion is denied.”
187 In re Livingston (1866), 34 N. Y. 555.
188 Aborn v. Janis (1907), 62 Misc. (N. Y.) 95; 113 N. Y. Supp. 309; De Francesco v. Barnum (Eng.) (1889), 60 L. J. Ch. 63.
In New York it is a misdemeanor to employ minors under specified ages for singing or danc