Story Case

Ralph Bowers, who was a minor, was the owner of a very fine horse. He sold the horse to Mr. Brown and delivered possession to him. Two months later, while still a minor, he went to the home of Mr. Brown and without notifying him took the horse away and sold it to Mr. Jones and delivered possession to him. When Mr. Brown found out what had been done he demanded possession of the animal from Mr. Jones who refused to give it up. Suit was then brought by Mr. Brown to recover possession of the horse from Mr. Jones. His right to recover depended upon whether the infant had disaffirmed the first sale to him. What should the Court decide under the foregoing circumstances?

Ruling Court Case. Nicrosi Vs. Mccarthy, Volume 72 Alabama Reports, Page 332; Volume 47 American Reports, Page 418

The defendant, McCarthy, was the owner of certain land which adjoined the premises of the plaintiff. During his minority the defendant agreed in writing to permit the plaintiff to construct and maintain a sewer over his land. In pursuance of the agreement, the plaintiff constructed the sewer. When the defendant came of age, or soon thereafter, he stopped up the sewer. In consequence of this act the land of the plaintiff was flooded, causing great damage. This action was brought for damages. The question was whether the act of McCarthy amounted to a trespass and a wrong, or was simply an act of rescinding and repudiating the contract and therefore unlawful.

Mr. Justice Somerville delivered the opinion of the Court:

"There can be no doubt of the principle, that in order to enable an infant to avoid a deed or other executed agreement, no act on his part is necessary during the period of infancy and the authorities are generally uniform in holding that after reaching his majority he can elect to confirm or disaffirm any voidable executed contract entered into by him while in a state of minority. The usual rule is that any such contract may be affirmed by unequivocally recognizing its continued existence and binding force. So it may be disavowed by some distinct and positive act, leaving no room for doubt as to the intention of the party. This may be effected by notice of disaffirmance, by suit, pleas, or entry upon real estate, or other unmistakable act of dissent, or of confirmation as the case may be." The act of the defendant in stopping up the sewer amounted to a disaffirmance of the contract.

Ruling Law. Story Case Answer

No particular formality is necessary to constitute a disaffirmance by an infant of his voidable acts and contracts. The disaffirmance may be in writing, or it may be oral; it may consist in words, or it may consist in conduct; it may be by refusing to accept the benefits of the contract, or it may be by returning them. If he has received and squandered the benefits of the contract, he may disaffirm by refusing to pay therefor, assigning as the reason his infancy. In general it may be said that a disaffirmance is any act, conduct, or writing which unequivocally shows an intention on the part of the infant not to be bound by the contract. A contract may be disaffirmed by conduct which is inconsistent with the binding effect of the contract. In the Story Case, when Ralph Bowers went to the home of Mr. Brown and took possession of the horse and sold it to a third person, such conduct was clearly inconsistent with an intent on his part to be bound by the first sale, and such conduct undoubtedly would constitute a disaffirmance of the first sale. Therefore, Mr. Jones had the right to the possession of the horse and Brown could not recover.