Case ID: mich-np-r_1/html/lxxxix-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Graves, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Minnock et. al. vs. Shortridge et. al.
    
    Error to. Oakland Circuit.
   Opinion hy

Graves, J.

Suit on notes executed by plaintiffs in error while doing business as partners. Notes given for merchandise when Minnock lacked four days of his majority. After reaching his majority he made no express promise to pay the notes. A portion of the goods were sold before, and the remainder after Minnock became of age.

Meld)'That the clear tendency of modern auihority is in favor holding the mercantile paper of minors voidable at their election, and not absolutely void. The general rule is that executed contracts are binding until avoided by the infant by words or conduct which show that the party refuses longer to be bound by them. When it is said that the executory contract of an infant is voidable, the idea represented is that the contract is susceptible of confirmation or avoidance by the promisor, though it is not binding until it is ratified.

The facts found bind both Minnock and Hadden to pay the value, hot exceeding the contract price, of so much of the goods forming the consideration of the notes as were L disposed of after Minnock became of age, and that a recovery therefor could be supported under the countin the declaration for goods sold and delivered.

The defendants in error having elected to proceed against Minnock and Hadden jointly, the amount recoverable could not go beyond the sum chargeable against Minnock, nor beyond the contract price of the goods, but a recovery according to the value of the goods, not exceeding the agreed price, would be legally unobjectionable. The finding' furnishes no data for ascertaining the amount for which judgment should be rendered upon the principle stated, and therefore anew trial was ordered with costs.