State v. Stansborough

ruled that a verbal direction of the father to the

son was a sufficient authority to the son to take possession of the house, and that a resistance against him was a forcible detainer from the father, and that, if the father were deemed non compos, yet if the act of the son was for the recovery or preservation of the possession of the father, from the necessity of the case, the act would be considered as allowed by the father.