Sec 70

As necessaries cannot be regarded goods supplied to an infant living at home and there suitably maintained.1 And articles with which an infant is already supplied by parent or guardian are not necessaries.2 But the mere fact that an infant has an income paid into his own hands which would have enabled him to have paid for all articles he required, does not preclude a tradesman supplying him with necessaries from recovering.3

1 Shaw, C. J., Davis v. Caldwell, 12 Cush. 512; and see Peters v. Fleming, 6 M. & W. 42; Wharton v. Mackenzie, 5 Q. B. 606; Bent v. Manning, 10 Vt. 225 ; Merriam v. Cunningham, 11 Cush. 40; Hall v. Weir, 1 Allen, 261; Eames v. Sweetzer, 101 Mass. 78; Johnson v. Lines, 6 W. & S. 80. In Peters v. Fleming, 6 M. & W. 42, it was said by Parke, J., with the approval ofGurney and Rolfe, BB., that the true rule is, " that all such articles as are purely ornamental are not necessary, and are to be rejected because they cannot be requisite for any one ; and for such matters, therefore, an infant cannot be made responsible. But, if they are not strictly of this description, then the question arises, whether they were bought for the necessary uses of the party, in order to support himself properly in the degree, style, and station of life in which he moves : if they were, for such articles the infant may be responsible. That must be a question for the jury." While whether the articles were necessary in the infant's particular station is a mixed question of law and fact, the question of imposition is mainly one of fact. Harrison v. Fane, 1 M. & G. 550; Wharton v. Mackenzie, 5 Q. B. 611; Dalton v. Gib, 7 Scott, 117 ; Ryder v. Wombwell, L. R. 4 Exch. 38 ; Phelps v. Worcester, 11 N..H. 51; Bent v. Manning, 10 Vt. 225 ; Bradley v. Pratt, 23 Vt. 378 ; Tupper v. Cadwell, 12 Met. 562; Stanton v. Wilson, 3 Day, 37; Johnson v. Lines, 6 W. & S. 80; Rivers v. Gregg, 5 Rich. Eq. 274; Lefils v. Sugg, 15 Ark.137.

2 Ryder v. Wombwell, L. R. 4 Ex. 32; reversing S. C, L. R. 3 Ex. 90 ; see Burghart v. Angerstein, 6 C. & P. 690; Hands v. Slaney, 8 T. R. 578. An infant who was a member of a volunteer corps, was held by Lord Ellenborough liable for regimentals sold him; the country being at war at the time, and volunteers being called out for the public defence. Coates v. Wilson, 5 Esp. 152.-A captain in the army, who is an infant, is liable for the livery of a servant, but not for cockades ordered for soldiers in his company ; Hands v. Slaney, 8 T. R. 578.

3 Benj. on Sales, 3d Am. ed. sec 25, citing Turner v. Trisby, 1 Str. 168; Abell v. Warren, 4 Vt. 149; Tupper v. Cadwell, 12 Met. 562; Roach v. Quick, 9 Wend. 238 ; Beeler v. Young, 1 Bibb, 519.

Sec 71

If an infant's property is exposed to waste or other peril, the proper course is to apply to his guardian for the pay of services in its preservation. Hence it has been held that an infant is not liable to a third party for the premium on insuring his property;4 nor for repairs done to his house which would otherwise have been in danger of great dilapidation ;5 nor for expenses of law-suits, unless absolutely essential to the infant's personal support, the guardian being the party to act in such cases under the court having; charge of the infant's estate.6