Story Case

Mr. Castlemen gave his son George a very fine horse as a birthday present. Several months later the son, who was only nineteen years of age, took the horse to the City Livery Company and offered the animal for sale. The livery company purchased the horse telling George that they would pay him for it on the following day. Before the youth reached home he regretted the sale. He called up the president of the livery company and told him that he had decided to avoid the sale and that he would come for the animal the following morning. That night the livery company's stables burned and George's horse, among others, was lost in the conflagration. The infant then sued the livery company for the price which had been promised for the horse. What judgment should be given?

Ruling Court Case. Mustard Vs. Wohlford's Heirs, Volume 15 Grattan Reports, Page 329; Volume 76 American Decisions, Page 209

During his minority, one Nisenwander contracted to sell some land to Mustard. The infant gave bond to make a conveyance and Mustard paid a part of the purchase money and went into possession under the contract. Soon after making this contract the infant became dissatisfied and repeatedly declared that he would not affirm the contract when he became of age. When he reached twenty-one years of age, he entered into a second contract of sale for the same piece of land, by which he agreed to sell it to Wohlford. He received a part of the purchase money from him, and thereafter made a conveyance to Wohlford.

After the death of Wohlford this action was brought by his personal representatives and heirs to recover possession of the land. Whether they were entitled to recover the same depended upon whether the second conveyance of the land was a disaffirmance of the first contract to sell.

Decision: The first contract of sale was disaffirmed by the second contract, made after the infant reached his majority. A voidable act of a minor may be avoided by different means, depending upon the nature of the act. It need not be an express disaffirmance. Any act which unequivocally shows an intention to disaffirm is sufficient.

As to the effect of disaffirmance in general, the Court said: "The Court is further of opinion that the effect of such disaffirmance was to render the first mentioned contract void, to extinguish any interest in law or equity that the defendant may have acquired under it, and to entitle Nisenwander, or his vendee, to recover possession of the land in an action at law, and to hold it free from any equity of the defendant.

If the contract was one of sale by the infant, he becomes reinvested with his title to the property, and may demand and recover it, not only of the vendee, but of any other person Who may have it in possession. The right of an infant to avoid his contract is an absolute and paramount right, superior to all equities of other persons, and may, therefore, be exercised against purchasers from the vendee."

The Court decided that this land could be recovered by the heirs of Wohlford.

Ruling Law. Story Case Answer

Most obligations imposed upon infants by their contracts are voidable only. They are binding until he elects to repudiate them. If he avoids them, the effect is as if there had never been a contract. If he avoids a sale of real or personal property, title thereto by the very act of avoidance revests in him, and he is then entitled to possession.

In the Story Case, when the infant notified the livery company that he had elected to avoid the sale of the horse, title to the animal revested in him, and the loss was on him, unless it appeared that the livery company was in some way responsible for the fire.