Article — Noldin, Summa of Moral Theology
Article Third. On the Ownership of Sons Under Family Power
372. Declarations. A son under family power is called a legitimate son (or legitimated son) who is not yet in his own right, but is subject to paternal power.
a. Distinction of persons. An infant is called a man up to the completed seventh year of age; an impubes is called one who has not yet arrived at puberty, therefore up to the fourteenth year of age if he is a boy, and up to the twelfth if she is a girl; a minor or minor of age is called one already pubescent up to emancipation; an adult or one of full age exists after emancipation. The year of emancipation is different in different laws.1 A ward is called an impubes who by the death of the father or by sentence of the judge (for example, on account of a physical or moral defect of the father) has gone out from paternal power; for him by force of law a tutor is constituted. For a minor who, already pubescent, has gone out from paternal power, a curator is constituted for the administration of goods.
b. Distinction of goods. From Roman law the goods of sons were distinguished into castrensian goods, which a son acquires for himself from military service or another public office; profectitious goods, which a son receives from his father or gains from the goods of the father; adventitious goods, which come to the son from elsewhere, for example, by inheritance, donation, special industry and labor.
Recent codes distinguish: alpha. free goods, which the son acquires by separated industry (while outside the paternal house he devotes himself to an office or labor, even if he lives at home) or by donation or a similar title; beta. non-free goods, which the son acquires by non-separated industry (laboring at home together with the father, or trading from paternal goods).
1 According to several codes (C. G., Section 2), children are minors up to the completed twenty-first year; according to C. A., Section 21, up to the completed twenty-fourth year. Emancipation according to some laws happens by that very fact when the son has attained legitimate age, according to others only must happen if the son wishes; with the conditions prescribed by law observed, it can also happen before this age.
373. Rights of sons, in establishing which recent codes nearly agree.1
a. Of goods which are called free, the son himself, even if he is a minor, has ownership; but their administration, and sometimes also usufruct, pertain to the father.2
alpha. Therefore where the son has not only direct ownership but also useful ownership of these goods, all their fruits pass into his ownership. And if the son dissipates these goods against the will of the parents, he sins against other virtues, but not against justice. - Although a minor son acquires for himself of himself those things which he acquires outside the paternal house by furnishing service or exercising his own art or trading with another's goods, nevertheless, since their administration belongs to the father, he ought to hand them over to the father; and if he secretly retains some things for himself without the father's knowledge, he acts illicitly by arrogating the administration to himself.
beta. If the son labors outside the paternal house, but lives and is fed at home, he ought to pay for his sustenance. For the father is not bound to feed a son who can provide for himself. Wherefore he ought to hand over the whole wage to his parents for paying the expenses of sustenance, unless perhaps he receives an extraordinarily great wage, or undertakes labor altogether extraordinary, or the parents consent that he retain some part of the wage for himself. But if, without the father's knowledge and against his will, he secretly retains part of the ordinary wage for himself, so that he does not pay the expenses of sustenance, of himself he sins against justice.
gamma. In a twofold case sons are not to be accused of sin because they withdraw something of the wage received from the father's administration, provided they have paid as much as is sufficient for sustenance: alpha. if they notice that the parents do not reserve those things which remain over after sustenance for the sons, but spend them for superfluous uses; beta. if sparing parents do not grant to sons, for honest recreations, those things which they can prudently expect from them.
b. Non-free goods of themselves pertain to the father, even if the son is of full age. For the fruits of the labor which the son exercises not in his own name but in the father's name fall to the father. Wherefore if the son withdraws or dissipates these goods against the will of the parents, he acts against justice.
1 C. A., Section 140 ff.; C. G., Section 1627 ff.
2 From C. A., Section 149, administration alone; from C. G., Section 1649 ss., partly also usufruct pertains to the father.
374. Whether a son can demand some wage by laboring in the paternal business.
a. A minor son constituted under paternal power cannot demand a wage for his labor: for as long as he is under paternal power, the parents can demand by right that he labor for preserving and increasing the domestic estate, and that he be content with the sustenance received at home.
b. A son of full age can demand nothing for owed labor. That labor is judged owed which, according to the condition of the father, is necessary for the decent and suitable sustenance of the family: for the father has the right of demanding from the son services which are necessary for the sustenance of the family. For example, a farmer can demand that he be helped by his son in agriculture; but for those things which are owed from piety no stipend can be demanded.1
c. A son of full age can of himself demand a wage for labor not owed, unless he intended to labor gratuitously; for parents have no right of demanding from sons services which are not necessary to their state and condition. But the son cannot demand a greater wage than an outsider would receive for the same labor; profit received from the business and labor pertains to the father, yet the father can by right subtract the expenses of sustenance and therefore diminish the wage.
alpha. But the son cannot demand the owed wage immediately; rather it must be committed to the father at what time and in what way he wishes to pay the debt owed to the son.
Ordinarily parents are not accustomed to pay wages to sons laboring at home, nor to increase the inheritance on account of their labors. Nor by this way of acting is justice judged to be injured: for ordinary labors are nearly compensated by food, clothing, peculium, and other advantages received in the paternal house. But on the other side, if sons, especially those of full age, remaining and laboring at home, steal something from paternal goods for the labors undergone or secretly compensate themselves, after the fact they are not easily to be compelled to restitution.
beta. And this, namely that the son cannot demand or take for himself another compensation for ordinary labor furnished in the paternal house, is valid even if other brothers meanwhile have been idle or have given themselves to studies; for these circumstances, merely external, do not make the profit of the labor fall not to the family but to the son. Yet parents are accustomed, either by donations or by other ways, to see to it that the industry and diligence of sons has its reward.
d. Yet if the labor not owed is extraordinary, which notably exceeds the customary labors of others or is very useful to the family estate, the son can of himself demand a greater wage or part of the profit, with the expenses for food deducted, unless from the beginning he had the express intention of furnishing those labors gratuitously; for if he had such an intention, it is not licit for him afterward, with his will changed, to demand a stipend.
If the son, without the father's knowledge, receives profit by trading from his goods, it must be distinguished in this way:
alpha. If the son acted in the father's name from the presumed permission of the father, he committed no sin, but the whole profit is the father's.
beta. If the son acted in his own name with money which he had made his own, the profit is the son's, but he committed sin because he took the money, and he ought to repair damage to the father if any arose in the father's business from the lack of money.
gamma. If the son acted in his own name with money which remained in the father's ownership, he can retain half the profit: for the matter can be considered as a partnership business, to which the father contributed the money, and the son the industry. Whether the son in this case committed sin depends on whether he acted against the father's will or from the presumed permission of the father.2
1 Cf. Lugo, De iustitia, disp. 5, n. 42.
2 Cf. Lehmkuhl, Casus consc., I, n. 565 ss.
375. Whether a minor son has ownership in goods given to him. - To determine the ownership which a minor son living outside the family has in goods given to him by parents or relatives, attention must be given to the will of those giving, whether expressed or reasonably presumed.
a. If goods are given absolutely, the son acquires full ownership of them, and therefore can dispose of them at will. In this way things consumable by their very use, money destined for recreation, and things which are given not by parents but by relatives, are usually given. Therefore if the son spends these things for vain uses, he sins by prodigality, but not by injustice.
b. If goods are given exclusively for a determined end, for example, money for buying books, garments, paying room and board, etc., the son does not acquire full ownership, and therefore he acts against justice and of himself is bound to restitution if he spends them for other ends, especially vain or dishonest ends. Yet he is often excused from restitution, because condonation by the parents can be supposed.
c. If things are given generally for occurring necessities, with no condition attached, the parents are judged to transfer full ownership of them to the son; wherefore he can spend some part of them, according to the state and condition of the parents, even on honest recreations. But if the son spends them against the will of the parents for vain uses, he sins against obedience, but not against justice.
d. If goods are given by the parents for use, as it is said, which are not consumable by first use, such as garments, books, etc., the son indeed has perfect ownership of them;1 nevertheless he ought to use them according to the intention of the giver, to whom he owes obedience. Hence if, for example, he were to sell books and dissipate the money received from them, he would not indeed sin against justice, but nevertheless, besides prodigality, also against obedience.
Note. Of itself it is not to be advised that agreements be made between parents and sons who live together and labor in the paternal house; much less are secret compensations to be promoted. Rather, the piety of sons toward parents and of parents toward sons is to be fostered and inculcated. But parents are to be exhorted to grant a just peculium and an equitable wage to sons remaining and laboring with them.
1 C. A., Section 151.