Sec 67

The object of restrictions of this class being to postpone business capacity until the age of twenty-one, articles furnished to an infant to enable him to carry on trade, no matter how essential these articles may be to his credit, or how dependent he may be on his business, are not considered necessaries.2 On the same reasoning, articles required by him in farming, in which he is engaged, are not considered necessaries.3 Such articles, however, in a bill of sale of this class, as are used by him in the necessary support of his family, are excepted from this rule.4

Sec 68

Under necessaries are included services as well as goods, provided, as will presently be seen, they are reasonably called for by the infant's condition of life.5 Under this head fall teaching a trade to an infant;6 his literary education, suitable to his social position;7 the preparation of a proper marriage settlement;8 the burial, with suitable expense, of the infant's husband;9 and the due support of the infant's wife ;10 and of his children.11

Sec 69

What are necessaries in one station of life may not be necessaries in other stations of life. It is important for the public interests, that a boy who is to inherit a large estate should be brought up with liberal tastes, so that his money can afterwards be dispensed in such a way as to promote public culture, and that his mind should be improved so that his influence should be afterwards used wisely and effectively. Hence it is, that he will be entitled, when under age, to such use of his estate, as will secure those ends; and when this is not done by special allowance granted to his guardians, the same end is effected by making him personally liable to parties who, on fair terms, furnish him with goods by which not merely his education, but his liberal support and training, in view of his future responsibilities, may be promoted.1 But horses furnished for the purposes of pleasure are not necessaries ;2 though it may be otherwise when their use is requisite to health, and they are not unsuited to the infant's condition and means,3 while, as has already been noticed, adaptation to station is a question of law for the court. Whether goods furnished are "necessaries or not, is a question of fact for the jury, depending on the circumstances; and the two principal circumstances are, whether the articles are suitable to the minor's estate, and whether he is, or is not, without other means of supply." . . . "Whether the articles sued for were necessaries or not, is a question of fact, to be submitted to a jury, unless in a very clear case, where a judge would be warranted in directing a jury authoritatively that some articles, as, for instance, diamonds or race horses, cannot be necessaries for any minor."1 But the finding of the jury in such respect is open to revision by the court; and in a recent English case, the court of exchequer chamber held that a jury were not at liberty to find that jewelled cuff buttons of the price of 2bl. are necessaries to a young man of fortune.2-As has been already incidentally noticed, necessaries furnished for the support of an infant's wife and children are to be regarded as furnished to himself. "What is supplied to them on his express or implied credit is considered as purchased by him."3

Articles of trade not necessaries.

Otherwise as to educational and other services.

1 Earle v. Reed, 10 Mete. (Mass.) 479 ; Price v. Saunders, 60 Ind. 310; see Bradley v. Pratt, 23 Vt. 378 ; Guthrie v. Morris, 22 Ark. 411, and see as to divisible considerations, infra, sec 511.

2 Love v. Griffith, 1 Scott, 458 ; Latt v. Booth, 3 C. & K. 292; Mason v. Wright, 13 Met. 308 ; Merriam v. Cunningham, 11 Cush. 40; though see Rundell v. Keeler, 7 Watts, 237 ; Watson v. Hensil, 7 Watts, 344, to the effect that an infant with his guardian's assent may so bind himself.

3 Decell v. Lowenthal, 57 Miss. 331.

4 Turberville v. Whitehouse, 1 C. & P. 94 ; 12 Price, 692.

5 Infra, sec 69.

6 Cooper v. Simmons, 7 H. & N. 707.

7 Manby v. Scott, 1 Sid. 112 ; Peters v. Fleming, 6 M. & W. 48; Baker v. Lovett, 6 Mass. 78; Middlebury College v. Chandler, 16 Vt. 682; Raymond v. Loyl, 10 Barb. 489.

8 Helps v. Clayton, 17 C. B. N. S. 553.

9 Chappie v. Cooper, 13 M. & W. 252.

10 Turner v. Trisby, 1 Stra. 168; Abell v. Warren, 4 Vt. 149 ; Tupper v, Cadwell, 12 Met. 562 ; Roach v. Quick, 9 Wend. 238, and cases cited infra, sec 69.

11 1 Ch. on Con. 11th Am. ed. 197 ; Beeler v. Young, 1 Bibb, 520, and cases cited in last note.

Necessaries conditioned on station of life.

1 Maddox v. Miller, 1 M. & S. 738; Peters v. Fleming, 6 M. & W. 42; Davis v. Caldwell, 12 Cush. 512; Mc-Kenna v. Merry, 61 111. 177. As illustrating the limit in this respect, see Hedgley v. Holt, 4 C. & P. 104 ; Charters v Bayntun, 7 C. & P. 52; Davis v. Caldwell, 12 Cush. 513; Strong v. Foote, 42 Conn. 203 ; Rundel v. Keeler, 7 Watts, 237; Mohney v. Evans, 51 Penn. St. 80 ; Beeler v. Young, 1 Bibb, 519. That even the guardian's assent will not sustain extravagant charges, see Johnson v. Lines, 6 W. & S. 80. That cigars and tobacco are not prima facie necessary, see Bryant v. Richardson, L. R. 3 Ex. 93, n. (3); 14 L. T. N. S. 24 ; and that without proof of special circumstances sustaining them, articles of luxury or hospitality are not necessaries, see Brooker v. Scott, 11 M.& W. 67 ; Wharton 8, Mackenzie, 5 Q. B. 606 ; Ryder v. Wombwell, L. R. 3 Ex. 90 ; Leake, 2d ed. 550.

2 Rainwater v. Durham, 2 Nott & McC. 524; see Mason v. Wright, 13 Met. 306.

3 Cornelia v. Ellis, 11 111. 584; see 1 Ch. Cont. 11th Am. ed. 234.