866 FEBEBAIi BEPOBTSB. �the mastepy establisb that a father may agree with his ohild to allow the latter to receive the earnings of his labor, and to enter into contracte with third persons to receive -nuages for future servi(?es, (Cloud y. Hamilton, 11 Humph. 104; Schou- le?'s Domestic Eelations, 346;) that Buch agreement may be implied from circumstances, (Armstrong v. McDonald, 10 Barb, 300;) that such agreement is not per se fraudulent as -to creditors, (Chase v. Elkins, 2 Vt. 290;) that the father cannot revoke such agreement so as to defeat the title of the child to wages already earned, {Torrens v. Campbell, 74 Pa. St. 470;) and that creditors cannot compel him to revoke it as to future earnings, (McClosky v. Cyphert, '2,1 Pa. St. 220.) Whether, as between the father and child, the former may revoke such an agreement, made without consideration, as to future earnings, is not definitely settled. See Hall v. HaU, 44 N. H. 293; Chase v. Elkins, 2 Vt. 290; Ahhott v. Converse, 4 Allen, 530; and Clark y. Fitch, 2 Wend. 469. It certainly is an open question in this state. Compare Kauffelt v. Mod- erwell, 21 Pa. St. 222, with Torrens v. Camphell, 74 Pa. St. 470; and see the opinion of Sharswood, J., in Titman v. Tit- man, 64 Pa. St. 480-6. �"It may be doubted whether, in the present case, there is Bufficient evidence to establish an agreement by respondent to waive his right to ail of his son 's future earnings. Such an agreement is not always to be implied because the minor is allowed to enter into a contract in his own name. Monaghan V. The School District, 38 Wis. 100. Nor is it conclusively established by the mere acquiescence of the parent in the re- ceipt by the minor of his present earnings. Clark v. Fitch, 2 Wend. 459; Schouler's Dom. Kel. 369. But concede that the present case falls within the principle of the cases cited by respondent, and that there is an implied agreement that Elmer H. Gray shall receive his earnings, — an agreement which would prevent respondent from suing for or appropriating those earnings while he allows his son to remain in Mr. Ladd's employ, — yet it by no means follows that he had com- pletely emancipated Elmer H. Gray from ail control, and had eurrendered ail parental authority over the latter's person ����
