Case Name: Oswald & Co. v. Broderick & Co.
Court: Iowa Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Iowa
Decision Date: 1855-12
Citations: 1 Iowa 380
Docket Number: 
Parties: Oswald & Co. v. Broderick & Co.
Judges: 
Reporter: Iowa Reports
Volume: 1
Pages: 380–382

Head Matter:
Oswald & Co. v. Broderick & Co.
A suit mayibe brought, and judgment rendered, against a minor, in cases where, on account of the'minor’s own misrepresentations as to his majority, or from hisbíÉEílllg' engaged in business as an adult, the other party had good reason to believe the minor capable of contracting.
The cases enumerated in section 1489 of the Code, are clearly exceptions to those contracts which may be disaffirmed under section 1488.
Where in an action on a note, one of the defendants pleaded infancy, to which there was a replication, alleging that at the time the note was given, and goo'ds furnished, which were the consideration for the noto, the defendant was engaged in business as an adult, and plaintiff had good reason to believe him capable of contracting, which replication was not denied; Edd, that the replication did not tender an immaterial issue, and not being denied, was admitted; and that the court below erred in finding against what was admitted on the record.
Appeal from the Lee District Court.
ACTION ou a note. Plea — infancy on tbe part of Anderson, one of tbe defendants. Issue taken on plea and replication, alleging tbat at tbe time tbe note was given, and tbe goods furnisbed wbicb were tbe consideration thereof, tbe defendant was engaged in business as an adult, and plaintiff bad good reason to believe bim capable of contracting; and also, tbat tbe defendant bas not returned tbe money or property received by bim by virtue of tbe contract. Be- joinder — that no part of the goods alleged to have passed as the consideration of the note, ever came to the possession of Anderson. Trial, finding of facts, and conclusions thereon by the court, as follows: That the defendant, Samuel Anderson, was a member of the firm óf D. A. Broderick & Co., at the time the note sued upon was given; that said Anderson was, at that time, a minor of the age of eighteen years; that the plaintiffs did not sustain their first rejfiication in evidence by proof; and that they had not good reason to believe defendant capable of contracting. Judgment inja-vor of Anderson. Motion for a hew trial, whb^fÉS^er^. ruled. Plaintiffs appeal, and assign the
1. The court erred in not rendering judgi^n^or the pl^pjf\\ tiffs on the pleadings.
2. The court erred in overruling the trial.
Miller & Banlcin, for the appellants.
F. Sample, for the appellee.

Opinion:
Isbell, J.
On the part of the appellants, it is urged that so much of their replication as sets up that defendant was engaged in business as an adult, and that plaintiffs had good reason to believe him capable of contracting, remaining un-responded to, must be taken to be true, and that the court erred in finding against it. On the part of appellees, we understand it to be admitted, that this must be taken as true, but it is urged that this much of the replication tendered an immaterial issue; that the true interpretation of the statute is, that an infant may have, until he arrives at majority, and a reasonable time thereafter, to disaffirm his contracts; and it appearing, that the party is still a minor, no recovery could be had against him. The statute referred to, is in the following words: "Section 1488. A minor is bound, not only by contracts for necessaries, but also by his other contracts, unless he disaffirms them within a reasonable time after he attains his majority, and restores to the other party all money or property received by bim by virtue of tbe contract, and remaining within his control at any time after his attaining his majority.
" Section 1489. No contract can be thus disaffirmed, in cases where on account of the minor's own misrepresentations as to his majority, or from his having engaged in business as an adult, the other party had good reason to believe the minor capable of contracting."
This statute, in our opinion, will not bear the construction contended for. The cases enumerated in section 1489, we regard, as clearly exceptions to those contracts which may be thus disaffirmed. Entertaining this view, the issue was material; and it was, therefore, error to find against it, thus tendered, and not joined in by the pleadings.
Judgment reversed.