Sec 64

Were an infant not liable for necessaries supplied to him at periods when he is absent from home, or without the support of parents or guardians, the privilege of minority, designed for his protection, might expose him to cruel wrong. He might have an estate fully adequate to his support; and yet, as it could not be made available for the payment of necessaries, persons on whom he calls to supply him with such necessaries might- refuse to supply them, or might furnish them only on exorbitant terms.

Infant liable for necessaries.

1 Parker, C. J., Whitney r. Dutch, 14 Mass. 457; Wilcox v. Roath, 12 Conn. 650 ; Goodsell v. Myers, 3 Wend. 479; Bigelow v. Grannis, 2 Hill, N. Y. 120 ; and see Conklin v. Ogborn, 7 Ind. 553 ; Murray v. Shanklin, 4 Dev. & B. 289 ; Dunlap v. Hales, 2 Jones, N. C. 381.

2 Smith v. Mayo, 9 Mass. 62 ; Ford v. Phillips, 1 Pick. 202 ; Conaway v. Shel-ton, 3 Ind. 334; Conkliu v. Ogborn, 7 Ind. 553.

3 Hale v. Gerrish, 8 N. H. 376 ; Whitney v. Dutch, 14 Mass. 460; Martin v. Mayo, 10 Mass. 137.

4 Hale v. Gerrish, 8 N. H. 374; Ben-ham v. Bishop, 9 Conn. 330; Goodsell v. Myers, 3 Wend. 479; Bigelow v. Grannis, 2 Hill, N. Y. 120; Alexander v. Hutcheson, 2 Hawks, 535.

5 Thrupp v. Fielder, 2 Esp. 628 ; Robbius v. Eaton, 10 N. H. 561 ; Hinely v. Margaritz, 3 Barr, 428; Dunlap v. Hales, 2 Jones, N. C. 381.

6 See Hartley v. Wharton, 11 A. & E. 934 ; Stern v. Freeman, 4 Mete. Ky. 309. In Hale v. Gerrish, 8 N. H. 374, an admission that the debt was due, and that the other party would get his pay, but refusing to give a note, was held no ratification.

7 Boody v. MoKenney, 23 Me. 517 ; Jackson v. Carpenter, 11 Johns. 542 ; Jackson v. Burchin, 14 Johns. 124; Bool v. Mix, 17 Wend. 120 ; Curtin v. Patton, 11 S. & R. 517; Cresinger v. Welsh, 15 Ohio, 193 ; and other cases cited, 1 Chit. on Con. 11th Am. ed. 219.

Hence it is a settled principle that for necessaries furnished to an infant his estate may be made liable.1

Sec 65

The liability, however, is only for the value of the things furnished, and not for their price as agreed upon by the parties at the time.2 Hence a deed given by an infant to secure the payment of necessaries is voidable.3 The value is always open to examination as a question of fact.4

Sec 66

It has been ruled that a negotiable note given by an infant for necessaries is void,5 and that a debt of this class cannot be charged as a balance of an account stated, even though there be a promise proved to pay such balance.6 But so far as this involves the position that bills or notes made by infants are always void, it is no longer law. Such paper, even though negotiable, is now held, at common law, voidable only, even though void under statute.7 And it has been held by high authority, that on a negotiable note given by an infant, the plaintiff may re-

But only for value, and not on account stated or note.

Rule as to negotiable paper.

1 Co. Lit. 172a; Wharton v. Mc-K-nzie, 5 Q. B. 606 ; Burghart v. Hall, 4 M. & W. 727 ; Ryder v. Wombwell, L. R. 3 Ex. Ch. 90 ; Kelly v. Davis, 49 N. H. 187 ; Gordon v. Potter, 17 Vt. 348; Hussey v. Jewett, 9 Mass. 100; Stone v. Dennison, 13 Pick. 1 ; Breed v. Judd, 1 Gray, 455 ; Shelton v. Pendleton, 18 Conn. 417; Strong v. Foote, 42 Conn. 203 ; Dubose v. Wheddon, 4 McCord, 221; Parsons v. Keys, 43 Tex. 557.

2 Locke v. Smith, 41 N. H. 346; Earle p. Reed, 10 Met. 387 ; Price v. Sanders, 60 Ind. 310.

3 Martin p. Gale, L. R. 4 Ch. D. 428 ; Ingledew v. Douglass, 2 Stark. 36; Hedgley p. Holt, 4 C. & P. 104; Williams p. Moor, 11 M. & W. 256.

4 Locke P. Smith, 41 N. H. 346 ; Earle v. Reed, 10 Met. 387 ; Swift v. Bennett, 10 Cush. 436; Johnson v. Lines, 6 W. & S. 80; Beeler v. Young,.

1 Bibh, 519 ; Glover v. Ott, 1 McCord, 572; Dubose v. Wheddon, 4 McCord, 221.

5 McCrillis v. How, 3 N. H. 348 ; Swasey v. Vanderheyden, 10 Johns. 33 ; Fenton v. White, 1 South, 100; Mc-Minn v. Richmond, 6 Yerg. 9 ; Morton p. Steward, 5 111. Ap. 553 ; see, however, supra, sec 37.

6 Trueman v. Hurst, 1 T. R. 40; In-gledon v. Douglass, 2 Stark, R. 36.

7 Supra, sec 37 ; Hunt v. Massey, 5 B. & Ad. 902 ; Boody p. McKenney, 23 Me. 523 ; Earle v. Reed, 10 Mete. (Mass.) 389 ; Goodsell v. Myers, 3 Wend. 479 ; Everson v. Carpenter, 17 Wend. 419 ; Henry v. Root, 33 N. Y. 526; Hesser v. Steiner, 5 W. & S. 476; Fetrow v. Wiseman, 40 Ind. 148 ; Hyman r. Cain,.

3 Jones, L. Ill; Dubose v. Wheddon, cover for as much of the debt as is incurred for necessaries.1.

4 McCord, 221 ; Cheshire v. Barrett, 4 McCord, 241; McMinn v. Richmond, 6 Yerger, 9.