Story Case

John Strawman, an infant nineteen years old, sold his farm to Henry Forgan for five thousand dollars. This sum was paid to him in cash. Strawman used this money to buy a steam yacht which four months later was destroyed during a storm. Immediately thereafter, when Strawman was still nineteen, he demanded the return of the farm on the ground that as an infant he could avoid his contract. Forgan defended on the ground that an infant cannot avoid a real estate contract, and demand the return of land until he has reached his majority; and second, that he must return the consideration given to him. Are these good defenses?

Ruling Court Case. Manning Vs. Johnson, Volume 26 Alabama Reports, Page 446; Volume 62 American Decisions, Page 732

In this case, the plaintiff, Manning, who was a minor at the time, conveyed by deed certain land to the defendant. At the time of the conveyance the defendant paid to the plaintiff the purchase price therefor. When the plaintiff reached the age of twenty-one years, he elected to avoid the sale. He notified the defendant of his intention and demanded the possession of the land. It was urged by the defendant that the plaintiff should not be permitted to recover unless he returned the money which had been paid to him for the land. It was shown by the plaintiff that he did not have the money or any part therof, nor was it under his control.

Mr. Chief Justice Chilton said: "If the infant, after he arrives at age, is shown to be possessed of the consideration paid him, whether it be property or money, and either disposes of it so that he cannot restore it, or retains it for an unreasonable length of time after attaining his majority, this amounts to an affirmance of the contract. So, likewise, if it can be shown that he has power to restore the thing that he received, he cannot be allowed to rescind without first making restitution. But if, as in this case, the consideration paid was money, and there is no proof that he was possessed of the money so obtained, either actually or constructively, after he attained his majority, so as to be able to restore it to the purchaser, the infant shall not be required, in a Court of law, to repay the amount he received as a pre-requisite to an avoidance of his deed by suit for his land." The infant therefore is permitted to retake the land since he has reached the age of his majority, and he need not return the money originally paid him since there is no proof that he has the money now or its direct proceeds.

Ruling Law. Story Case Answer

An infant cannot avoid a real estate contract in the same manner as other contracts when he is the one who sold the land. The general rule is that he can disaffirm as an infant, but he cannot get possession of the land until he reaches twenty-one. This rule is based on the theory that the buyer cannot run away with the land, or destroy it as he could personal property, and therefore the infant is fully protected when he is permitted to recover after reaching his majority. In the meantime, however, the buyer is accountable to the infant for the profits of the land and any waste that may occur.

In the Story Case, Forgan's first defense is good, and Strawman cannot demand a return of the property until he reaches twenty-one years of age. The second defense, however, is not good. When Straw-man reaches his majority he can compel the return of the land without paying anything since the money paid by Forgan is gone, and there are no results to show for it.