Case ID: ill-app_185/html/0422-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Justice Baume", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Enrico Chiappe by E. J. Markie, Defendant in Error, v. John B. Devoney and Rafelo Arrigo, Plaintiffs in Error.
    Gen. No. 18,164.
    (Not to be reported in full.)
    Abstract of the Decision.
    1. Infants, § 30
      
      —necessary parties plaintiff in suit involving disaffirmance of contract. Where an infant together with two other persons agreed to purchase certain real estate and the infant paid one hundred dollars as part of the earnest money and thereafter elected to disaffirm the contract, held in an action by the infant to recover the sum so paid that the cocontractors of the infant were not necessary parties plaintiff and that failure to join them as parties plaintiff did not defeat recovery.
    
      Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Thomas F. Scully, Judge, presiding.
    Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1912.
    Affirmed.
    Opinion filed March 11, 1914.
    Statement of the Case.
    Action by Enrico Chiappe, a minor, by E. J. Maride, his next friend, against John B. Devoney and. Bafelo Arrigo to recover one hundred dollars alleged to have been paid by plaintiff to defendants under the terms of contract for the purchase and sale of real estate, which contract the plaintiff elected to disaffirm. A trial by the court without a jury resulted in a finding and judgment against the defendants. To reverse the judgment, defendants prosecute error.
    Biohabd I. Gavin, for plaintiffs in error; Gavin & Mater, of counsel.
    G. P. Sayers, for defendant in error; F. William: Kraft, of counsel.
    
      
      Son Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, same topic and section number.
    
    
      
      See Illinois Noted Digest, Vols. XI lo XV, same topic and section number.
    
   Mr. Justice Baume

delivered the opinion of the court.

2. Infants, § 30 —parties in suit to disaffirm contract. An insistence that an infant in an action to disaffirm his contract must make his cocontractors parties plaintiff violates the rule that a plea of infancy is not available to the other parties to the contract but is personal to the infant alone.