Sec 72

Money is not ordinarily included under the head of necessaries.7 Even though actually spent by the infant in the purchase of necessaries, it cannot, such is the prevalent English opinion, be recovered from the infant by the lender.8 In this country, however, it has been held that a person lending money to an infant to purchase specific necessaries stands in the position of the tradesinfant must be without home support.

Services rendered in preserving infant's property not necessaries.

Moneys lent not necessaries.

1 Bainbridge v. Pickering, 2 W. Black. 1325 ; Angel v. McLellan, 16 Mass. 28 ; Wailing v. Toll, 9 Johns. 141 ; Bredin v. Diven, 2 Watts, 95 ; Guthrie v. Murphy, 4 Watts, 80; Johnson v. Lines, 6 W. & S. 80.

2 Swift v. Bennett, 10 Cush. 436 ; Davis v. Caldwell, 12 Cush. 512; Strong v. Foote, 42 Conn. 203 ; Kline v. L'Amo-reaux, 2 Paige, 419 ; Hull v. Conolly, 3 McCord, 6 ; Beeler v. Young, 1 Bibb, 579 ; Simms v. Norris, 5 Ala. 42; Perrin v. Wilson, 10 Mo. 451 ; Parsons v. Keys, 43 Tex. 557. But in Ryder v. Wombwell, L. R. 3 Ex. 90, it was held that evidence that the infant was already well supplied, without evidence that the plaintiff knew this, was inadmissible ; though see, contra, Foster v. Redgrave, L. R. 4 Ex. 35, n. (8). This point was left open in Ryder v. Womb-well, L. R. 4 Ex. 42. See Leake, 2d ed. 551.

3 Burghart v. Hail, 4 M. & W. 727 ; Peters v. Fleming, 6 M. & W. 42.

4 Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Noyes, 32 N. H. 345.

5 Tupper v. Cadwell, 12 Met. 562. 6 Phelps v. Worcester, 11 N. H. 51 ; Thrall v. Wright, 38 Vt. 494.

7 Darby v. Boucher, 1 Salk. 279 ; Walker v. Simpson, 7 W. & S. 83.

8 Ellis v. Ellis, 5 Mod. 368 ; 1 Ld. Raym. 344.

man who furnishes the necessaries;1 and, when an infant is pressed for a debt for necessaries, the party lending him money to pay such debt can recover the loan from him.2

Sec 73

An adult entering into an engagement of marriage with an infant is bound by the contract, though the infant's contract to marry is voidable.3 Hence, while an infant may sue on such a contract, he is not liable to be sued, though he may ratify it when of full age, in which case he would become liable.4 Marriage settlements by an infant are voidable, though since, when a female infant marries a husband of full age, her personal property at common law passes to him when he assumes possession, the settlement of her personal property made by a duly executed marriage contract binds the husband, impressing on the property thus taken by him the conditions of the particular trust.5 But, unless authorized by statute, even an order of the chancellor having jurisdiction does not operate to make a marriage contract, otherwise invalid, binding on an infant.6 And a settlement made by a female infant, in contemplation of marriage, is voidable ;7 though after marriage and during coverture she is (unless by statute) incapable of disaffirming it.8