Case Name: Dr. J. C. Bouchell v. Daniel G. Clary
Court: Constitutional Court of South Carolina
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1815-04-25
Citations: 3 Brev. 194
Docket Number: 
Parties: Dr. J. C. Bouchell v. Daniel G. Clary.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Carolina Law Reports
Volume: 5
Pages: 194–195

Head Matter:
CONSTITUTIONAL COURT, COLUMBIA,
APRIL, 1815.
Dr. J. C. Bouchell v. Daniel G. Clary.
On the question, whether an infant could bind himself by a note of hand', it was held by the court that such a note was voidable, though it may have been given for necessaries.
Generally, all contracts made with an infant are voidable, he may, however, bind himself for necessary meat, drink, apparel, physic, schooling, &c.
Motion for a new trial.
Assumpsit on a promissory note of hand, tried before Bay, J., in the Circuit Court of Abbeville district. ,
Defendant -pleaded infancy, to which the plaintiff replied, that the consideration was necessaries; &c. It appeared in evidence, that the defendant had been placed by his father with the plaintiff, who was a practising physician, to be instructed in the science and practice of medicine; and that the father gave his note of hand to the plaintiff for $100, as a fee, or compensation, for his instruction. After the defendant had been some time with the plaintiff, he represented to the plaintiff that his father was a poor man, with a large family, and requested the plaintiff to give him up his father’s note, ánd take his own note instead thereof. This the plaintiff complied with, after, it appeared that the defendant could not prevail on any person to be his security.
The judge, who presided, charged the jury to take an equitable view of the case, and do justice to the plaintiff. Verdict for defendant,
25th April, 1815.
Argued by Noble, for the defendant, and Lomax, for plaintiff.
Noble cited 1 P. Wnjs. 559. 2 T. R. 169. Insisted it was a case of fraud.

Opinion:
Bkevard, J.
The replication admits the fact pleaded in bar. The question is, whether an infant can. bind himself by note of hand, and whether the consideration in this case was necessaries. Infants are much favored in law. Generally, all contracts made with, an infant are voidable at the election of the infant. It is an exception to this rule, if the infant biúds himself for necessary meat, drink, apparel, physic, schooling, &c, suitable to his fortune and rank in life. The articles furnished ought to appear to have been necessary for him, and the prices ought to appear reasonable. The exceptions to this general doctrine are only where an infant may be benefited, and cannot be prejudiced. In the present case the instructions given to the defendant may, or.may not, have been ♦beneficial to him; but certainly they were not necessary to his support or advancement in life. They may not have been adapted to his capacity or genius. But, independent of this, the action is founded on a negotiable paper. This is a void contract, and not merely voidable, although it may have been given for necessaries. Chitty on Bills, 20. 1 Campb. 552. An account stated by an infant has been held invalid. 1 D. and E. 40, 42. If the note were to be considered valid, prima facie, as a negotiable note, the consideration could not be inquired into, if it were to go into the hands of a bona fide holder, and the infant would be precluded from disputing the consideration. 10 Johns. 33.
Per curiam, unanimously. New trial refused.