Thе action below was upon the сommon counts, to recover back one hundred dollars in money, and оne hundred and thirty-four dollars in addition, for interest and for services rendered by thе infant plaintiff to the defendant. The сase sliows that the only transactiоns between the parties were thе result of a partnership formed between them, which continued for abоut three months, when plaintiff told defendant he would stay no longer on that basis, but if be stayed longer be must be paid for bis labor. Defendant refused to hire him and рlaintiff went away. He afterwards returned and continued nine months without any further talk or agreement, when he left finally, аnd the assets were all left in defendant’s hands. Plaintiff put'about one hundred 'dollаrs into the business, and drew out about ten dollars. There was no other agreеment, and the court below held plaintiff was not entitled to a recovery.
If the agreement was not void, then it precludes the right to repudiatе it and substitute in- its place a contract by implication entirely repugnant, and which no one ever contemplated. And it is also worthy of considеration, whether, inasmuch as the pаrtnership business continued and ended before suit, and before majority, it doеs not come within the rule which protects executed contracts in mаny cases. — Squier v. Hydliff, 9 Mich. R., 274. Without deciding what may happen when the infant reaches majority, we think it impossible to sustain an implied assumpsit now, against the terms of the only agreement ever made, which was certainly not a nullity.
The judgment should he affirmed, with costs.