Story Case

James Story, an infant, signed a written contract obligating himself to buy a horse from Howard Milli-ken for $200. Two months later, after he became twenty-one years old, he orally promised Milliken to take the horse and pay for it within ten days. He failed to do this, however, and Milliken brought suit on the written contract. Story put in defense the fact that the written contract was made while he was an infant and, therefore, could be avoided, and that Milliken should have brought suit on the oral promise made after Story became of age. Should Milliken have proceeded in this manner?

Ruling Court Case. Hunt Vs. Massey, Volume 5 Barnewall & Adolphus' King's Bench Reports, Page 902

During his minority, Massey became obligated by a bill of exchange which was drawn on him by the plaintiff. After the defendant came of age, and before the bill was due, he wrote a letter to a third person requesting him to pay the bill. Thereafter he refused to allow the third person to pay it and he likewise refused to pay it himself. This action was brought by the plaintiff upon the bill of exchange originally drawn. It was objected by the defendant that the action should not have been brought upon the original bill, but upon the new promise.

Decision: This letter, written by the defendant, was equivalent to a ratification. The effect thereof was not to make a new contract as of the date of the ratification, but to render absolutely binding the voidable bill originally drawn.

It was held that the action was properly brought upon the original bill of exchange, and the plaintiff was held entitled to recover thereon.

Ruling Law. Story Case Answer

The affirmance after reaching majority of the voidable contract of a minor does not create a new contract. It is not an obligation which begins at the time of affirmation. It is the continuation of the contract as originally made. The contract was binding upon the infant, subject to his right to avoid it. If, instead of avoiding it, he affirms it at the proper time, the effect is as if the contract were binding from the beginning.

In the Story Case, Milliken proceeded correctly. The oral promise of Story was not in effect a new contract. It was the confirmation and affirmation of the written contract which he could not thereafter avoid.