Case ID: scl_11/html/0688-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "HugeR, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

James Rainwater, Jr., v. Isaac Durham.
    An infant is only liable in liis contracts for necessaries, and a horse will not he included in that denomination, 
    
    Although an infant is liable for necessaries, yet only their value can be recovered.
    Motion for a new trial. This was an action of assumpsit, on a promissory note, for ninety dollars, to which the general issue was pleaded.
    
      It appeared from the evidence, that the note was given for a horse ; that at the time of the purchase, the defendant was a minor, and had married and lived on a piece of land, where he supported himself by farming. The horse purchased, was the only one owned by the defendant, and was not worth more than half the price given for it.
    A verdict was had for the plaintiff, and a motion was made for a new trial, on the following grounds:
    1. That a horse is not a necessary, and therefore the defendant, being an infant, is not liable for the purchase money.
    *2. That if a horse be a necessary, the infant is only liable for its value. ' L 040
    
      
      
        Freeman v. Hurst, 1 T. R. 40 ; Reeve’s Dom. Rel. 227, 578. Qucery. Whether an infant can bind himself at all by a note for necessaries ? See Williamson v. Watts, 1 Camp. N. P. 552; Swasey v. Adm'r Vanderheyden, 10 John. 33. R.
      See 6 Rich. 27, and cases cited there; 1 N. & McC. 34, 200, notes ; 1 McC. 592; 3 McC. 7.
    
   The opinion of the Court was delivered by.

HugeR, J.

On the first ground I have felt some difficulty. The English decisions have latterly very much enlarged the circle of necessaries for an infant. In the case of Hands and Slaney, 8 T. R., it was decided, that a livery for a servant was necessary to an infant, who was an officer in the army. A case is said to have been decided by Mr. Baron Clarke, and referred to in Bull RF. P. 154, in which it was ruled, that sheep were necessary to an infant, who was a farmer. But with this case I am not satisfied, nor do the English Courts appear to have been satisfied with it. In-the case of Whywall v. Champion, Strange, 1083, it was ruled, that goods furnished an infant, who was a shopkeeper, were not necessary. And in the case of Birth v. Keighley, it was decided, that the work done for a glazier and painter, who was an infant, although done to articles in the way of his trade, was riot within the meaning of the term necessary. The object of the law is to guard the infant against his supposed indiscretion. To render him liable, however, for the contracts that may be supposed necessary to a farmer, a trader, or glazier, is to attribute to him a discretion which negatives the presumption of law. I am of opinion that the horse was not, in this case, such a necessary as entitled the plaintiff to a recovery.

On the second ground, I will only observe, that could the rule have been so far stretched as to include a horse within necessaries, the defendant would have been only liable for the value of the horse. The motion is, therefore, granted.

Coloook and .Richardson, JJ., concurred.

Johnson and Gantt, JJ., dissented.