Story Case

Louis Hansen, an infant, sold a wagon to Henry Lawson. Two days later George Hall took the wagon under a Court attachment as the property of Hansen. This was on a judgment secured by Hall against Hansen for necessities furnished to him. Hall maintained that since Hansen was an infant the sale made by him was voidable and therefore the wagon could be treated as his property. Is this a correct contention?

Ruling Court Case. Holmes Vs. Rice And Dayton, Volume 45 Michigan Reports, Page 142

Ella M. Parks, a minor, was the owner of a fanning mill. During the period of her non-age, she sold and delivered the mill to her mother, Sarah Holmes. Rice had obtained judgment against Lorenzo Holmes, husband of Sarah, and stepfather of Ella. Dayton, acting as deputy sheriff, seized this mill, belonging to Sarah, in satisfaction of the claim against her husband. This could not be done by the law of Michigan. The plaintiff, Sarah Holmes, brought suit to recover the mill or its value.

It was contended by the defendants that the sale by Ella to her mother, being voidable, did not give her such title as would enable her to bring this action.

Mr. Chief Justice Marston said: "The law in recognizing the incapacity of infants to enter into contracts and declaring such contracts voidable does so for the infant's protection. Their contracts are not void, but voidable, and it is for the infant to avoid the contract or ratify, and not within the power of a stranger - certainly not a wrong-doer - to set up the infant's incapacity to contract as a protection to himself. The contract, though voidable at the option of the infant, is valid as to third persons who are strangers to both parties to the contract and claiming either." Therefore the mother received a good title to the property from the infant, and could validly bring this action against the defendant, who had no right to put in a defense which belongs only to the infant. Accordingly it was held that the plaintiff might recover the value of the mill of the defendants.

Ruling Law. Story Case Answer

It has been stated heretofore that the right to avoid a voidable contract is a right which is personal to the infant. While the infant lives, he, and he only, may avoid the same. After his death, only his personal representative may do so. It follows from this, that the rights of third persons are the same as if the contract were absolutely binding, so long as the infant does not choose to exercise his right to disaffirm.

In the Story Case, Hall did not have the right to avoid the infant's contract, if the infant himself did not choose to do so. Therefore the sale made to Law-son was a good sale and Hall had no right to attach the property as belonging to Hansen.