Truth. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1901-1908, 1906-10-06

" pay, DuI LOT Ine reasonable value.
A question arises as to what are
necessaries. By ''necessaries" is not
meant what is absolutely necessary to
barely keep the infant alive The rule
as generally stated is that the infant
is bound for the value of such neces-
saries as are reasonably useful in
maintaining him properly considering
his station in life. What, therefore,
would be deemed a necessary with one
person would not be deemed so with
another "A poor boy not moving in
society that is accustomed to evening
dress, would not be held bound on
a contract to buy full dress suit A
boy whose station in life, whose asso-
oiates and circumstances, require the
Use OF evening dress, with the alterna-
tive OF his appearing ridiculous, would
oe held bound under such a contract
IN the theory that the suit was a ne
,essity. A contract for articles of
mere luxury or ornament made by an
infant would not be valid and bind
ing on him.
Then, again, it must be shown, in
order that contract for necessaries
be held good, that the infant was not
supplied with them by his parents,
guardians, or otherwise. The same
rule that is stated above holds with
reference to contracts for medical
attendance in sickness, and for the
expense OF common school education.
Contracts made by the infant for
these, when not furnished by the
larent or guardian, or otherwise. would
oe upheld as valid. Food and clothing,
Of coures, come under the rule. A
contract for college education would
not be binding. In other words, what
ever the infant contracts form order
that the contract be valid or binding
Upon him, must be reasonable in guam
tity, quality and kind, and suited to
mis- station in life, and not be furnished
him by parents, guardians, or from
other sources.
Contracts entered into by an infant
| 20 conduct business or relating to
business are voidable. One who pays
child money on contract with him
for services does so at his peril. The
child's earnings belong to the father
and not the child, particularly if the
child lives with the father. If the
child, however has been emancipated
the rule is different.
AS u property generally, the ln1ant
may take property and hold it, but
| once it is his, he cannot make a con-
tract selling it or conveying it that Is
| not voidable by him.
In the matter of the ratification of a
contract by one who has reached
maturity, it should be stated that the
ratification must be of the whole con-
tract. One ratifying contract made
in infancy cannot ratify part and avoid
part; he must either ratify all or avoid
all. One who has bought property
in infancy and not paid for it cannot,
upon reaching maturity, keep the
property and avoid the contract as
to payment. And so with an infant
who has obtained property ON a con-
tract; If he desires to disaffirm the con-
tract, he must return the property.
He cannot both retain the property
and refuse to pay for it. If, however,
he has wasted or squandered or lost
or destroyed the property and cannot
return it, he is not held liable for it.
| In this connection it is interesting
to note that in general an infant is
liable for fraud, SANDER, assault, con-
version, and other common law torts
in the same way as an adult is; but