Hussey v. Jewett

9 Mass. 100 | Mass. | 1812

Per Curiam.

The promissory note of an infant is by one who is under a legal disability to contract, with the single exception of a supply for necessaries; and, in that case, he is not concluded by a stipulation respecting prices; which seems to be the reason that a special promise and a bond in a penalty, even for necessaries, are alike void. And a void promise is not to be enforced against the. executor of a supposed party, any more than against the party himself. The evidence is annulled by the principle of law, that an infant is incapable of establishing such a contract against himself while under age. He may conclude himself by recognizing the consideration and promise after he comes of age; for this is a con tract and promise made then, the words of which are understood by the reference to the formal promise made in his infancy, and the renewal of it. ^(a) The plea in bar is adjudged good.

(a) [In the case of Whiting & Al. vs. Dutch & Al., (14 Mass. Rep. 457,) it was held that a promissory note made by an infant is not void, but only voidable. And see Bing. Inf. 17, Com. Contracts, 2d ed. 563. — Ford vs. Phillips, I Pick 202. — Avoid contract cannot be confirmed. — Ed.]