The Democrat-sentinel. [volume] (Logan, Ohio) 1906-1935, 1906-10-04
Popular Talks on Law

VWohVy'OHe years. III MI DuO
few states, however, females be-
come of age at eighteen. The law
relating to infants contr is for
the protection of the infant him
self. He is assumed not to be able
to protect himself. The age limit,
twenty-one years, was fixed in the
law many years ago. Perhaps
were the law to be formulated
anew the limit would be set lower.
Young men and young women en-
ter upon business life nowadays
earlier than formerly. However,
in no jurisdiction, 80 far as we
have learned, has there heen any
serious attempt made to set the
limit of many lower than twenty
one years, except, as stated, in the
case of females.
1t is common to hear it said
that an infants contracts are void,
that one under age cannot make a
binding contract. This is an un-
safe statement of the rule, if, in
deed, not an incorrect one. 1t
were better to say that infants
contracts are voidable, that is, he
may avoid them if he 80 desires;
but there are even exception to
this, as we shall see. II an infants
contracts were void neither party
could be held to them, but it is
clear in the law that if the infant
wants the contract to stand he can
compel its performance on the
part of the adult dealing with him
in other words, the plea of infancy
is a personal privilege. and one of
age who makes contract with an
infant is bound so long as the IN
fant performs his part of the CON
tract.
A contract that is voldable on
the part of the infant may, upon
his reaching maturitY, be ratified
by him, in which case both parties
will be bound. Where his contract
IS 'yoidable, as is generally the case,
he must avoid it before he be-
comes of age or at once after be-
coming of age, or he will be held
as having ratified it.
There are instances where the
contract of an infant is valid and
cannot be avoided by him. These
contracts are such as are made for
the necessares of life under certain |
circumstances. In sense it is
scarcely proper, however, to say
that he is bound by his contract
for necessaries. He is, strictly !
speaking, not bound as on contract
at all in other words, not bound |
to pay the price that he agrees to
pay, but only for the raesona BILE
value.
A question arises az to what are
necessaries. BY "necessaries" is
not meant what is absolutely neces-
sary to barely keep the infant alive.
The rule as generally stated is
that the infant is bound for the
value OF such necessares as are
reasonably useful in maintaining
him properly considering his sta
tion in life. What, therefore,
would be deemed necessary with
one person would not be deemed 80
with another. A poor boy not
moving in society that is accustom-
ed to evening dress suit, would
not be held bound on contract to
buy full dress suit. A boy whose
station in life, whose associates
and circumstances, require the use
OF evening dress, with the alter
native of his appearing ridiculous,
would be held bound under such
contract on the theory that the
suit was necessity. A contract
for articles of mere luxury or orna-
ment made by an infant would not
be valid and binding on him
TheE, again it must be shown,
in order that contract for neces-
sarles be held good, that the in
FAINT was not supplied with them
by his parents, guardians, or other
wise. The same rule that is stated
above holds with reference to con
tracts for medical attendance in
sickness, and for the expence of
common school education.
Contracts made by the infant
for these, when not furnished by the
parent or guardian, or otherwise,