Sec 59

A continuance, after majority, in possession of land purchased during minority may ratify ;9 and so may the payment of rent on a lease taken during minority;10 and the carving out of inferior interests, retaining the control of the title.11

Sec 60

A mere non-disaffirmance, after majority, of a vendee's title, under a conveyance made during minority, does not operate to affirm the conveyance, unless the period of statutory prescription is reached;12

So of continuance in possession.

Silence by vendor may amount to estoppel.

1 Western R. R. v. McMichael, 5 Ga. 114.

2 Robinson v. Hoskins, 14 Bush, 393 ; see Miller v. Sims, 2 Hill, S. C. 479.

3 Thomasson v. Boyd, 13 Ala. 419.

4 Story v. Johnson, 2 Y. & C. 607; Boston Bk. v. Chamberlain, 15 Mass. 220 ; see Williams v. Mabee, 3 Halst. Ch. 500.

5 Tunison v. Chamblin, 88 111. 378. That part payment is not a ratification, see infra, sec 63.

6 Todd v. Clapp, 118 Mass. 495.

7 Tobey v. Wood, 123 Mass. 88.

8 Spicer v. Earl, 41 Mich. 291. As to repudiation of contract, see supra, sec 51.

9 Dana v. Coombs, 6 Greenl. 89 ; Kline v. Beebe, 6 Conn. 494 ; Henry v. Root, 33 N. Y. 526 ; Lynde v. Budd, 2 Paige, 191; see Bigelow v. Kinney, 3 Vt. 353.

10 Supra, sec 58.

11 See Tucker v. Moreland, 10 Pet. 58 ; Hubbard v. Cammiugs, 1 Greenl. 11; Eagle Co. v. Lent, 6 Paige, 635; Williams v. Mabee, 3 Halst. Ch. 500 ; Hoyle v. Stowe, 2 Dev. & B. 320 ; cf. Holmes v. Blogg, 8 Taunt. 35.

12 Tucker v. Moreland, 10 Pet. 58 ; Irvine v. Irvine, 9 Wall. 617 ; Boody v. McKenny, 23 Me. 523; Emmons v. Murray, 16 N. H. 394; Kline v. Beebe, 6 Conn. 494; Jackson v. Carpenter, 11 Johns. 539 ; Bool v. Mix, 17 Wend. 120 ; Drake v. Ramsay, 5 Ohio, 251 ; Cresinger v. Welsh, 15 Ohio, 193 ; Doe v. Abernethy, 7 Blackf. 442 ; Hastings v. Dollarbride, 24 Cal. 195 ; Prout v. Wiley, 28 Mich. 164; Norris v. Vance, 3 Richards. S. C. 164; Wallace v. Latham, 52 Miss. 291.

though it is otherwise, if, after arriving at twenty-one, the vendor sees, without notice, the vendee put valuable improvements on the property conveyed. Such silent acquiescence on his part amounts to an estoppel, and precludes him from afterwards invalidating the sale.1 And an enjoyment of the purchase-money for a long series of years, with tacit encouragement to the vendee to settle permanently, operates as a confirmation,2 especially when the vendee has gone on without molestation to make improvements on the land.3 The same rule applies to all contracts. But lapse of time does not preclude repudiation when there has been no estoppel or intermediate ratification by enjoyment.4

Sec 61

An infant vendor's deed of real estate is disaffirmed by the execution, after his majority, of a second deed, inconsistent with the first, to a third party; nor, to effect this disaffirmance, is it necessary, that the infant should re-enter on the lands. The second deed, however, must be in express conflict with the first.5 But to make the second deed effectual as against the first vendee, the grantor, in jurisdictions where this is required, must be in actual or constructive possession, and must not be estopped by laches from asserting his rights.6 The question whether there must be a re-entry depends upon whether the lex rei silœ sustains deeds from parties in merely constructive possession.7 It would be unfair, however, to treat a second deed, made after majority, as an avoidance of a first deed, made during minority, unless the vendee under the first deed has notice of the vendor's avoiding act. If the vendor and the second vendee permit the first vendee to go on and improve, this, with non-notification, may estop them from contesting his title.1

Vendor's secoud deed disaffirms first.

1 Whart. on Ev. sec 1144 ; Bigelow on Est. 3d ed. 337 et seq.; Kerr on Fraud, 296 ; Gregory v. Mighell, 18 Ves. 328 ; Jones v. Phoenix Bank, 4 Seld. 285 ; Wallace v. Lewis, 4 Harring. 75; Wheaton v. East, 5 Yerg. 41. As to estoppels during infancy, see infra, sec 74 et seq.

2 Richardson v. Boright, 9 Vt. 368; Kline v. Beebe, 6 Conn. 494.

3 Davis v. Dudley, 70 Me. 236 ; Cocks t;. Simmons, 37 Miss. 183.

4 Gillespie v. Bailey, 12 W. Va. 70.

5 Eagle Fire Co. v. Lent, 6 Paige, 635 ; Cresinger v. Welsh, 15 Ohio, 156; Hoyle v. Stowe, 2 Dev. & B. 320; see Slater v. Brady, 14 Ir. C. L. 61.

6 Riggs v. Fisk, 64 Ind. 100.

7 See Jackson v. Carpenter, 11 Johns. 539; Jackson v. Burchin, 14 Johns. 124; Bool v. Mix, 17 Wend. 119 ; Mustard v. Wohlford, 15 Grat. 329; cf. Tucker v. Moreland, 10 Pet. 58.