The modern rule retains the classification, but limits void contracts to formal powers of attorney, appointments of agents, and gratuitous gifts; valid contracts, to executed contracts of status and promises to perform duties imposed by law; and voidable contracts, to all other agreements. 42 AVOIDANCE.-Under this classification, all an infant's contracts of sale, except for necessaries, are voidable.43 This includes his 42. 2 Page on Contracts, § 857 et seq. In Connecticut, it is made an offense against public policy by statute to give unauthorized credit to a minor student. mi Gen. St., § 1405. “Unauthorized credit to minor student.—Any person who shall give credit to а nor student of any college or university of this State without the written consent of his parent or guardian or an authorized officer of such institution shall be fined not more than three hundred dollars." A contract to sell or a sale of goods in violation of this statute, being illegal, cannot be enforced. The promissory note of an infant, though given for necessaries, is not binding on him during infancy, and he cannot be held liable thereon, either by the payee or a surety. Ayers v. Burns, 87 Ind. 245. 43. Gibbs v. Merrell, 3 Taunt, 307; Hunt v. Massey, 5 B. & Ad. 902; 1 Mechem on Sales, § 95; Benjamin on Sales, § 22; 2 Page on Contracts, § 872. "There is some contradiction in the books relative to the precise line of discrimination between those acts of an infant, which require affirmance to render them valid, or disaffirmance to avoid their operation. In this position, however, they generally agree, that wherever the act done may be beneficial to the infant, it shall not be deemed void, but voidable. This rule is highly reasonable, most beneficial to the infant, and sanctioned by many judicial opinions. Zouch v. Parsons, 3 Burr. 1794, 1808; Jackson v. Carpenter, 11 Johns. (N. Y.) 539; Oliver v. Houdlett, 13 Mass. 237; Rogers v. Hurd, 4 Day (Conn.), 57, 62; Mapes v. Wightman, 4 Conn. 376, 379; 1 Swift's Digest, 56; Roberts v. Wiggin, 1 N. H. 73; Wright v. Steele, 2 N. H. 51, 55." Kline v. Beebe, 6 Conn. 494, 503. "The privilege of an infant to avoid contracts which are injurious to him, and rescind those which are not, is not an exception to the general rule, but a general rule with exceptions. The law assumes the incapacity of an infant to contract. It also recognizes the fact that the limitation of infancy is arbitrary; that it is indispensably necessary that an infant should be at liberty to contract for necessaries; and that he may happen to make other contracts which will be beneficial to him. It does not, therefore, forbid him to contract, but gives him for his protection the privilege of avoiding contracts which are injurious to him and rescinding all others, whether fair or not, whether executed or executory, and as well before as after he arrives at full age -excepting from the operation of the privilege only contracts for necessaries, contracts which he may be compelled in equity to execute, and executed contracts where he has enjoyed the benefit of them, and cannot restore the other party to his original position. These exceptions are founded in the necessities of the infant, or required by a just regard for the equitable rights of others." Riley v. Mallory, 33 Conn. 201, 206. Citing Kline v. Beebe, 6 Conn. 494, 502. 45 executory contracts, executed sales and exchanges, 15 although the property has passed into the hands of bona fide purchasers,46 executed purchases other than necessaries, and chattel mort Voidable means that they are neither valid nor void (“in equilibrio") until affirmed or avoided.49 PARTIAL AVOIDANCE.-If the contract is entire, an infant cannot affirm it in part and avoid it in part.50 If the contract is "As a general rule with but few exceptions, an infant may avoid his contracts of every kind, whether beneficial to him or not, and whether executed or executory." Gregory v. Lee, 64 Conn. 407, 413, 414, 25 L. R. A. 608. Citing Riley v. Mallory, 33 Conn. 201. See, also, Mapes v. Wightman, 4 Conn. 376, 378; Peters v. Lord, 18 Conn. 337; Shipman v. Horton, 17 Conn. 481, 483; Kingman v. Perkins, 105 Mass. 111. 44. Rice v. Boyer, 108 Ind. 472; Williams V. Brown, 34 Me. 594; Kingman v. Perkins, 105 Mass. 111; Minock v. Shortridge, 21 Mich. 304; Lynch v. Johnson, 109 Mich. 640; Cogley v. Cushman, 16 Minn. 354; Craig v. Van Bebber, 100 Mo. 584; Edgerly v. Shaw, 25 N. H. 512; State v. Plaisted, 43 N. H. 413; Petrie v. Williams, 67 Hun (N. Y.), 589; 1 Mechem on Sales, § 95; 2 Page on Contracts, § 873. 45. White v. Branch, 51 Ind. 210; Williams v. Brown, 34 Me. 594; Towle v. Dresser, 73 Me, 252; Kingman v. Perkins, 105 Mass. 111; Holmes v. Rice, 45 Mich. 142; Downing v. Stone, 47 Mo. App. 144; Miller v. Smith, 26 Minn. 248; Carr v. Clough, 26 N. H. 280; Bool v. Mix, 17 Wend. (N. Y.) 119; Chapin v. Shafer, 49 N. Y. 407; 1 Mechem on Sales, 106; 2 Page on Contracts, § 873. 46. Downing v. Stone, 47 Mo. App. 144; Englebert v. Troxell, 40 Neb. 195, 26 L. R. A. 177. 47. Riley v. Mallory, 33 Conn. 201; House v. Alexander, 105 Ind. 109; Rice v. Boyer, 108 Ind. 472; Butler v. Stark (Ky. 1904), 79 S. W. 204; Robinson v. Weeks, 56 Me. 102; McCarthy v. Henderson, 138 Mass. 310; Barney v. Rutledge, 104 Mich. 289; Nichols v. Snyder, 78 Minn. 502; Whitcomb v. Joslyn, 51 Vt. 79. . "A contract made by an infant, although executed, is, as to him voidable. Fetrow v. Wiseman, 40 Ind. 148. And it may be avoided by him at any time during his minority, or on his arrival at full age. Ind. Chair Mfg. Co. V. Wilcox, 59 Ind. 429 without returning or offering to return, to the other party, the property which was obtained from him under the contract. Carpenter v. Carpenter, 45 Ind. 142; Towell v. Pence, 47 Ind. 304; White v. Branch, 51 Ind. 210; Dill v. Bowen, 54 Ind. 204." Clark v. Van Court, 100 Ind. 113, 116; 2 Page on Contracts, § 873; 1 Mechem on Sales, § 115. 48. Barney v. Rutledge, 104 Mich. 289; Miller v. Smith, 26 Minn. 248; Chapin v. Shafer, 49 N. Y. 407; 1 Mechem on Sales, § 111. 49. Kline v. Beebe, 6 Conn. 494, 503; Bestor v. Hickey, 71 Conn. 181, 186; McGreal v. Taylor, 167 U. S. 688; Alvey v. Reed, 115 Ind. 148; McDonald v. Sargent, 171 Mass. 492; Nichols v. Snyder, 78 Minn. 502; Danville v. Mfg. Co., 62 N. H. 133; Patterson v. Lippincott, 47 N. J. L. 457; Dolph v. Hand, 156 Pa. St. 91; 1 Mechem on Sales, § 96; 2 Page on Contracts, § 872. 50. Am., etc., Mortgage Co. v. conditional, he is bound by the conditions.51 He cannot retain the goods and avoid a mortgage for the purchase money on the ground of infancy.52 WHO MAY AVOID.-The infant himself and his personal representatives may avoid the sale.53 "Voidable acts by an infant can be avoided by none but himself or his privies in blood and not his privies in estate."54 Thus an infant's heirs,55 or his guardian,56 or his personal representative, as his executor or administrator,57 may avoid his contracts of sale. But neither the other party to the contract, 58 nor a stranger, ,59 nor his creditors, 60 nor his as Dykes, 111 Ala, 176; Biederman v. O'Conner, 117 Ill. 493; Langdon v. Clayson, 75 Mich. 204; Lynde v. Budd, 2 Paige (N. Y.) Ch. 191; Bigelow v. Kinney, 3 Vt. 353; 2 Page on Contracts, § 887; 1 Mechem on Sales, 110. 51. A boy having capacity to accept a free pass, takes it with its conditions and is as much bound by it as an adult. Griswold v. N. Y. & N. E. Ry. Co., 53 Conn. 371, 390; Biederman v. O'Conner, 117 Ill. 493; Lowry v. Drake, 31 Ky. (1 Dana) 46. Contra: An infant who purchases a bicycle under a contract of conditional sale on which he makes default, after the bicycle has been taken from him under the terms of the contract, may avoid the contract and recover the money that he has paid thereunder, although the sum paid would not be an unreasonable compensation for the use of the bicycle while in his possession. 66 Whatever may be the law elsewhere (s (see Rice v. Butler, 161 N. Y. 578), it is settled in this State that a minor can avoid a contract like that in this case, and is not obliged to put the other party in statu quo or allow anything for the rent and use of the property while in his possession." Gillis v. Goodwin, 180 Mass. 140. Citing Chandler V. Simmons, 97 Mass. 508, 514; Walsh v. Young, 110 Mass. 396; McCarthy v. Henderson, 138 Mass. 310; Pyne v. Wood, 145 Mass, 558; Dube v. Beaudry, 150 Mass. 448; Morse v. Ely, 154 Mass. 458. See Robinson v. Berry, 93 Me. 320. 52. Heath v. West, 28 N. H. 101; Curtiss v. McDougal, 26 Ohio St. 66; Knaggs v. Green, 48 Wis. 601. 53. Cannon v. Alsbury, 8 Ky. (1 A. K. Marsh) 76; Oliver v. Houdlet, 13 Mass. 237; Patterson v. Lippincott, 47 N. J. L. 457; Voorhees v. Waite, 15 N. J. L. (3 Green) 343; 1 Mechem on Sales, § 97; 2 Page on Contracts, § 884. 54. Riley v. Dillon, 148 Ala. 283; Sharp v. Robertson's Exr., 76 Ala. 346; Hooper v. Payne, 94 Ala. 223, 225; Austin v. Charlestown Seminary, 49 Mass. (8 Met.) 196. 55. Bozeman v. Browning, 31 Ark. 364; Illinois Land Co. v. Bonner, 75 Ill. 315; Gillenwaters v. Campbell, 142 Ind. 529; Harris v. Ross, 86 Mo. 89; Walton v. Gaines, 94 Tenn. 420; Veal v. Fortson, 57 Tex. 482. 56. Chandler v. Simmons, 97 Mass. 508; Shreeves v. Caldwell, 135 Mich. 323. But see Oliver v. Houdlett, 13 Mass. 237. 57. Shropshire v. Burns, 46 Ala. 108; Vaughn v. Parr, 20 Ark. 600; Hussey v. Jewett, 9 Mass. 100; Hill v. Keyes, 92 Mass. (10 Allen) 258; Parson v. Hill, 8 Mo. 135; Tillinghast v. Holbrook, 7 R. I. 230; Roberts v. Wiggin, 1 N. H. 73; Person v. Chase, 37 Vt. 647. 58. Holt v. Ward Clarencieux, 2 Str. 939; Resso v. Lehan, 96 Iowa, 45; Stiff v. Keith, 143 Mass. 224; signee in bankruptcy or insolvency, nor his trustee 2 can avoid his contract. Mere concealment of minority does not prevent the infant from disaffirming the contract.63 An infant's false representation that he is of age creates no estoppel if the other party is not deceived thereby; or does not rely thereon. 65 And at common law, the infant is not estopped in an action at law notwithstanding the Monaghan v. Insurance Co., 53 Mich. 238; Patterson v. Lippincott, 47 N. J. L. 457; Hunt v. Peake, 5 Cow. (N. Y.) 475; Hicks v. Beam, 112 N. C. 642; Plate v. Durst, 42 W. Va. 63, 32 L. R. A. 404; Johnson v. Insurance Co., 93 Wis. 223. 59. Hooper v. Payne, 94 Ala, 223; Trustees v. Anderson, 63 Ind. 367; Nightingale v. Withington, 15 Mass. 272; Thompson V. Hamilton, 29 Mass. (12 Pick.) 425; Soper v. Fry, 37 Mich. 236; Holmes v. Rice, 45 Mich. 142; Hill v. Taylor, 125 Mo. 331; Bordentown v. Wallace, 50 N. J. L. 13; Curtiss v. McDougal, 26 Ohio St. 66; Blankenship v. R. R. Co., 43 W. Va. 135. 60. Kingman V. Perkins, 105 Mass. 111; Yates v. Lyon, 61 N. Y. 344. 61. Mansfield v. Gordon, 144 Mass. 168. 62. Des Moines Insurance Co. v. McIntire, 99 Iowa, 50. 63. Davidson v. Young, 38 Ill. 145; Alvey v. Reed, 115 Ind. 148; Sewell v. Sewell, 92 Ky. 500; Baker v. Stone, 136 Mass. 405; Stack v. Cavanaugh, 67 N. H. 149; Waugh v. Beck, 114 Pa. St. 422; 2 Page on Contracts, § 880. In Iowa an infant, who, by engag ing in business, causes the other party to believe him an adult, is liable. Beickler v. Guenther, 121 Iowa, 419. 64. Sims v. Everhardt, 102 U. S. 300; Watson v. Billings, 38 Ark. 278; International Text Book Co. 80 Conn. 307; Wei110 Ill. V. land Doran, Kobick, V 16; 133 Ind. 134; Conrad v. Lane, 26 Minn. 389; Ridgeway v. Herbert, 150 Mo. 606; Burley v. Russell, 10 N. H. 184; Hall v. Butterfield, 59 N. H. 354; Charles v. Hastedt, 51 N. J. Eq. 171; Brown v. McCune, 5 Sand. (N. Y.) 224; Studwell v. Shapter, 54 N. Y. 249; Heath v. Mahoney, 7 Hun (N. Y.), 100; Thrall v. Wright, 38 Vt. 494; Whitcomb v. Joslyn, 51 Vt. 79; Nash v. Jewett, 61 Vt. 501, 4 L. R. A. 561; 2 Page on Contracts, § 880; 1 Mechem on Sales, § 119; Benjamin on Sales, § 22. "The plaintiff claimed that the defendant was estopped from relying on his infancy, because of his stating his age in the contract as twentyone, and its accepting the contract on the supposition, thus induced, that he was of full age. No fraud is charged against him in the pleadings, and what he did was done by the direction of one acting for the plaintiff in the negotiation. Under these circumstances, there is no sufficient Conroe foundation for an estoppel. v. Birdsall, 1 John. Cases (N. Y.), 127." International Text Book Co. v. Doran, 80 Conn. 307, 310. recov A minor's fraudulent misrepresentation that he is of age does not estop him from rescinding a written contract for compensation and ering on the quantum meruit. BurSee dett v. Williams, 30 Fed. 697. Price v. Hewett, 8 Ex. 146; Johnson v. Pye, 1 Sid. 258; Bartlett v. Wells, 31 L. J. Q. B. 57. 65. Bradshaw v. Van Winkle, 133 Ind. 134; Slayton v. Barry, 175 Mass. 513. other party relied on the false representations and was deceived;" .66 but may be by statute.67 In equity, such false representations estops the infant to deny his majority.68 The majority of authorities hold that an infant is not liable in tort for the purchase of chattels induced by such misrepresentations. 69 WHEN AVOIDANCE CAN BE MADE.-An infant's contracts to sell or sales may be avoided either during his minority,70 or within 66. Weiland v. Kobick, 110 Ill, 16; Wilson v. Wilson (Ky. 1899), 50 S. W. 260; Merriam v. Cunningham, 65 Mass. (11 Cush.) 40; Folds v. Allardt, 35 Minn. 488; Commander v. Brazil, 88 Miss. 668; Ridgeway v. Herbert, 150 Mo. 606; Burley v. Russell, 10 N. H. 184; Houston V. Cooper, 3 N. J. L. 431; Studwell v. Shapter, 54 N. Y. 249; Carolina, etc., Ass'n v. Black, 119 N. C. 323; Whitcomb v. Joslyn, 51 Vt. 79; Eliot v. Eliot, 81 Wis. 295, 15 L. R. A. 259. But see Damron v. Com., 110 Ky. 268. 67. Dillon v. Burnham, 43 Kan. 77. 68. Ryan v. Growney, 125 Mo. 474, 477; Hayes v. Parker, 41 N. J. Eq. 630; Pemberton, etc., Ass'n v. Adams, 53 N. J. Eq. 258. 69. Gear V. Hovey, 1 Root (Conn.), 179; Brown v. Dunham, 1 Root (Conn.), 272; Jennings v. Rundall, 8 T. R. 335; Price v. Hewett, 8 Exch. 146; Wright v. Leonard, 11 C. B. (N. S.) 258; De Roo v. Foster, 12 C. B. N. S. 272; Slayton v. Barry, 175 Mass. 513; Merriam v. Cunningham, 65 Mass. (11 Cush.) 40; Nash F. Jewett, 61 Vt. 501, 4 L. R. A. 561; 2 Page on Contracts, § 880; 1 Mechem on Sales, § 119; Benjamin on Sales, § 22. Contra: "If an infant effects a sale by means of deception and fraud, his infancy protects him." Cooley on Torts, § 107. "Upon this principle it has been held that an infant is not liable for the value of property obtained by means of false representations. Howlett v. Hoswell, 4 Camp. 118; Green v. Greenbank, 2 Marsh, 485; Vasse v. Smith, 10 U. S. (6 Cranch) 226; Studwell v. Shapter, 54 N. Y. 249. It is also generally held that an infant is not estopped by a false rep. resentation as to his age, but this doctrine rests upon the principle that one under the disability of coverture or infancy has no power to remove the disability by a representation. Carpenter v. Carpenter, 45 Ind. 142; Sims v. Everhardt, 102 U. S. 300; Whitcomb v. Joslyn, 51 Vt. 79; Conrad v. Lane, 26 Minn. 389; Wieland v. Kobick, 110 Ill. 16; Ward v. Ins. Co., 108 Ind. 301. "Our conclusion that an infant is liable in tort for the actual loss resulting from a false and fraudulent representation of his age, is well sustained by authority and is strongly entrenched in principle." Rice V. Boyer, 108 Ind. 472, 475. Citing Fitts v. Hall, 9 N. H. 441; Eckstein v. Frank, 1 Daly (N. Y.), 334; Schuneman v. Paradise, 46 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 426. 70. Riley v. Mallory, 33 Conn. 201; International Text Book Co. v. Doran, 80 Conn. 307; Carpenter v. Carpenter, 45 Ind. 142; Ind. Chair Co. v. Wilcox, 59 Ind. 429; Clark v. Van Court, 100 Ind. 113; Shirk v. Shultz, 113 Ind. 571; Shipley ▼ Smith, 162 Ind. 526; Childs v. Dob bins, 55 Iowa, 205; Towle v. Dresser, 73 Me. 252; Adams v. Beall, 67 Md. 53; Willis v. Twambly, 13 Mass. 204; Bloomingdale v. Chittenden, 74 Mich. 698; Cogley v. Cushman, 16 Minn. 354; Carr v. Clough, 26 N. H. 280; Chapin v. Shafer, 49 N. Y. 407; Price v. Furman, 27 Vt. 268; Hoyt v. Wilkinson, 57 Vt. 404; Hall v. Butterfield, 59 N. H. 354. Contra: Os |