Case ID: ohio-law-abs_7/html/0388-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "RICHARDS, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

HOFFMAN v EDSON CO
    Ohio Appeals, 8th Dist, Cuyahoga Co
    No 10021.
    Decided May 20, 1929
    Charles A. Jilek, Cleveland, for Hoffman.
    Conners & Lombard, Cleveland, for Ed-son.
    Judges RICHARDS, WILLIAMS & LLOYD of the 6th district sitting.
   RICHARDS, J.

In Spencer vs. Collins, et al., 156 California, 296, it was held that notice of disaffirmance need only be given to the party with whom the contract was made and need not be given to an assignee of the contract. See also Downing vs. Stone, 47 Mo. App., 144.

An infant, either before or within a reasonalbe time after becoming of age may disaffirm a contract not for necessaries. In the instant case, on electing to disaffirm, he caused the property to be returned, and this court is of the opinion that he was not required to do any more than that. While the application for credit signed by Hoffman gives his age as twenty four years, his testimony that he stated his age as twenty years and that the seller filled in the age as twenty four years is uncontradicted.

On the evidence contained in the bill of exceptions we think the trial court was in error in holding that there was no defense to the merits of the case, and for this reason the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings.

Williams and Lloyd, JJ, concur.