Sec 31

Although there is much ambiguity in the language of the old books in this respect, it is now settled that the contracts of an infant, when not made null by statute, are not void, but voidable in his favor. (1)

Infancy at common law embraces twenty years.

When the last year of infancy expires.

Contracts of infants voidable.

1 Co. Lit. 1716; Pollock, 3d Eng. ed. 50 et seq. In England, by the Infant's Relief Act of 1S74, " loans of money to infants, contracts for the sale to them of goods other than necessaries, and accounts stated with them, are absolutely void; and no action can be brought on the ratification of any contract made during infancy.".

2 Herbert v. Turball, 1 Keb. 589 ;.

Ewell's Leading Cases, 1-3; Metcalf on Contracts, 38 ; Tyler on Inf. 2d. ed. sec 2.

3 Metcalf on Contracts, 38.

4 To this, see Godson v Sanctuary. 4 B. & Ad. 264 ; Wells v. Wells, 6 Ind. 447; Hamlin v. Stevenson, 4 Dana, 597.

5 State v. Clarke, 3 Harring. 557 : See 20 Am. Jur. 252.

They require no consideration when assumed by him on his majority, and they date back to their original assumption, not to his majority. (2) They are in force until repudiated, which repudiation, to be effective, must be made when they are brought to the notice of the party on his arrival at full age.1 Thus an infant's transfer of a note to an indorsee for valuable consideration is voidable only;2 and so of a compromise of a suit ;3 and of an assignment of debts,4 and of an account stated ;5 and of contracts for labor ;6 and of a contract for the charter of a vessel;7 and of a trading contract for the purchase of goods.8

Sec 32

From this it follows that an infant can maintain an action at law against the other contracting party; nor can the latter set up want of mutuality.9 Nor does the fact that the indorser was an infant preclude a recovery by the indorsee against the maker of negotiable paper.1 A court of chancery, however, on the ground that it cannot put conditions in such cases upon the plaintiff, will not sustain a suit for specific performance brought by an infant.2 And a contract which an infant is absolutely precluded from making binds neither party.3-If it be objected that there is no consideration for the promise to the infant, the answer is that the infant's promise is not only susceptible of ratification, but binds when he comes of age should he waive the plea of infancy when sued.4

Other contracting party bound on such contract.

1 Supra, sec 28 ; infra, sec 56 ; Gibbs v. Merrill, 3 Taunt. 309 ; Huntr. Massey, 5 B. & Ad. 902 ; Tucker v. Moreland, 10 Pet. 71 ; Irvine v. Irvine, 9 Wall. 619 ; State v. Plaisted, 43 N. H. 413 ; Whitcomb v. Joslyn, 51 Vt. 79 ; Worcester v. Eaton, 13 Mass. 371; Kendall v. Lawrence, 22 Pick. 540; Boyden v. Boyden, 9 Met. 521 ; Kline v. Beebe, 6 Conn. 594 ; Conroe v. Bird-sail, 1 Johns. Cas. 127; Roof v. Stafford, 7 Cow. 179 ; Bool v. Mix, 17 Wend. 119 ; Gillet v. Stanley, 1 Hill (N. Y.) 121 ; Law v. Long, 41 Ind. 595 ; Wheaton v. East, 5 Yerg. 41 ; Slaughter v. Cunningham, 24 Ala. 260; Schneider v. Staihr, 20 Mo. 271 ; Stuart v. Baker, 14 Tex. 417. See discussion in 1 Am. Lead. Cas. 4th ed. 242 et seq. ; Benj. on Sales, 3d. Am. ed. 22. As to distinction between "void" and " voidable," see supra, sec 28 ; infra, sec 55, 114, 117, 154, 283- see, also, Tyler on Inf. 2d ed. 51-2.

2 Nightingale v. Withington, 15 Mass. 272. See fully infra, sec 37.

3 Ware v. Cartledge, 24 Ala. 622.

4 McCarty v. Murray, 3 Gray, 578 ; Kennedy v. Doyle, 10 Allen, 161.

5 Williams v. Moor, 11 M. & W. 256.

6 Judkins v. Walker, 17 Me. 38 ; Vent v. Osgood, 19 Pick. 572; Clark v. Goddard, 39 Ala. 164; Lowe v. Sinklear, 27 Mo. 308. But a contract "which compels him (the infant) to serve at all times during the term, but leaves the master free to stop his work and his wages whenever he chooses to do so, cannot be considered as beneficial to the servant ;" R. v. Lord, 12 Q. B. 757.

7 Walker v. Ellis, 12 111. 425.

8 Warwick v. Bruce, 2 M. & S. 205 ; Bruce v. Warwick, 6 Taunt. 118. In Thornton v. Illingworth, 2 B. & C. 824, as is noticed by Mr. Benjamin (Sales, p. 23), all that was decided was, that such a contract could not be ratified after action brought. For the position that a bond with penalty executed by an infant is void, has been cited Baylis v. Dineley, 3 M. & S. 477 ; but in this case, as is noticed by Mr. Pollock, " nothing more is decided than that, being under seal, it cannot be ratified save by an act of at least equal solemnity with the original instrument.".

9 Supra, sec 2 ; infra, sec 523 ; Bruce v.