Court Opinion

ID: 9589602
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 23:46:41.146855+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:28:48.418647
License: Public Domain

HusKins, J.,
dissenting:
I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion which enlarges the concept of “necessaries” to include “such articles of property and such services as are reasonably necessary to enable the infant to earn the money required to provide the necessities of life for himself and those who are legally dependent upon him.” To this end the ancient rule of the common law is modified pro tanto.
Inferentially, this modification of the common law rule applies only to “older minors,” although what age group this embraces is not clear. Presumably, the jury in each case must now determine what articles of property and what services an infant may obtain by enforceable contract. Thus with respect to contracts with minors, it now becomes impossible for the legal profession to advise clients with any degree of certainty. What is a “necessary” in any given case is largely unknown until the jury speaks. Furthermore, what factual situation a trial judge should nonsuit at the close of the evidence and what he should submit to the jury under appropriate instructions becomes a judicial game of chance. It would be better, in my opinion, simply to apply long established legal principles and leave this area of the law undisturbed. Accordingly, I vote to affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals sustaining the judgment of nonsuit in the court below.
BRANCH, J., joins with this dissent.