Case 24. Strong v. Foote, 42 Connecticut Reports 203. Facts: Suit by a dentist for services in filling and cleaning defendant's teeth. The defendant makes it his defense that he was a minor and that the services cannot be legally classed as necessaries.

PARDEE, J.: "In suits against minors instituted by persons who have rendered services or supplied articles to them, the term 'necessaries' is not invariably used in its strictest sense, nor is it limited to that which is requisite to sustain life, but includes whatever is proper and suitable in the case of each individual, having reference to his circumstances and condition in life.

"The defendant applied to the plaintiff for relief from pain and the prevention of its occurrence; he, finding the cause in the defendant's decaying and neglected teeth, immediately began the work of relief and repair, and continued the same from time to time during a period of six weeks, until its completion. It was necessary for the preservation of the teeth and the charge therefor is reasonable in amount. In view of the circumstances of this defendant, we have no hesitation in saying that the services are within the legal limitations of the word 'necessaries.'" (Accord: McLean & Jackson, 76 S. E. (Ga.) 792.)

Question 24: If a minor should have an accident and employ a surgeon to treat him, would he be liable, and if so, for what amount?

Case 25. Ryan v. Smith, 165 Mass. 303.

Facts: Suit by Ryan, a minor, to repudiate his contract with Smith for the purchase of a barber shop business and the furniture therein, and to recover back his money paid on account thereof. Plaintiff is a minor with no means of support except out of his own earnings.

Point Involved: Whether the purchase of a business by a minor who has to support himself out of his own earnings is binding upon him?

KNOWLTON, J.: "The only question in this case is whether the judge should have ruled, at the request of the defendant, that the articles purchased by the plaintiff were necessaries. They were a barber shop and chair and divers other articles of furniture designed to be used in furnishing a barber shop. The plaintiff was a minor and he had no means of support except what he earned. The law does not contemplate that a minor shall open a shop and become a trader, or the proprietor of a business which involves the making of a variety of contracts. This has long been settled by the authorities.

*. It is clear that the articles in question were not necessaries. If they had been hand tools to a reasonable amount, such as are ordinarily provided by a journeyman and necessary for use in his trade or business, the case would be different."

(Judgment for the minor.)

Question 25: (1) A minor buys an automobile truck, intending to earn his living in the cartage business. He tenders back the truck and demands his money. How should the court determine the case? (See Lein v. Centaur Motor Co., 194 Ill. Ap. 509.) (2) Suppose a minor earns his living as a barber, and buys razors used by him to carry on his occupation. Are they necessaries?

(b) Station in Life as Factor.

Case 26. Wharton v. McKenzie, 5 Q. B. 606.

Facts: Defendant was a minor, attending college away from home and boarding at the University Commons. He was a gentleman of rank and fortune and from time to time gave dinners in his lodgings to his acquaintances, and for that purpose obtained on his credit from plaintiff, a tradesman, meats, fruits and confectionery. Failing to pay his account, plaintiff sued him, and he pleaded infancy.

Point Involved: Are expensive dinners purchased by a minor of rank and fortune for the entertainment of his friends, necessaries?

LORD DENMAN, C. J.: For a young man in some situations in life, not only clothes may be considered necessaries, but a watch and the like articles, which he is expected to wear in that condition of life; but with respect to the articles here supplied, it is an outrage to common sense to say they can possibly be necessaries. Suppose the son of the richest man in the kingdom to have been supplied with diamonds and race horses, the judge ought to tell the jury that such articles cannot be necessaries. It is said we must look to the circumstances of each defendant. True; we must do so. But the articles supplied must be necessaries, not mere comforts or conveniences."

*

Question 26: (1) State the facts, the question presented and the court's decision in the above case.

(2) Suppose A, the son of a wealthy society leader, becomes a member of a social club, can he be held for his dues?

(3) Suppose he purchases an automobile? Can he be held for the price?

(4) What does the court say in respect to his purchase of a watch?

(5) Suppose he buys expensive jewelry, is it a necessary?

(c) Minor Already Supplied.

(Note: See Nash v. Inman, set out as Case 22.)

(d) Minor Must Be Actually Supplied.

Case 27. Gregory v. Lee, 64 Conn. 407.

Facts: Lee, a minor aged 19 years, was a student at Yale college. He engaged rooms of Gregory for the school term of 40 weeks at $10 per week. He occupied the rooms only about three months and then engaged rooms elsewhere. G. was unable to rent the rooms for the balance of the term and now sues L. for such period. Points Involved: Generally, what are necessaries?

Specifically, can a minor be held on an executory contract for necessaries?

TORRANGE, J.: “**

Under the facts stated it

*

must be conceded that this room, at the time the defendant occupied it and during the time he hired it, came within the class called 'necessaries,' for lodging comes clearly within the class of necessaries, and the room in question was a suitable and proper one. Things necessary are those without which an individual cannot reasonably exist. In the first place, food, raiment, lodging and the like. About these there is no doubt. So long then as the defendant actually occupied the room as his sole lodging room it was clearly a necessary to him, for the use of which the law would compel him to pay *. The question now is whether he is bound to pay for the room after December 20, 1892 (when he abandoned it). The obligation of an infant to pay for necessaries actually furnished to him does not seem to arise out of a contract in the legal sense of that term, but out of a transaction of a quasi-contractual nature; for it may be imposed on an infant too young to understand the nature of a contract at all. And where an infant agrees to pay a stipulated price for such necessaries, the party furnishing them recovers not necessarily the price, but only the fair and reasonable value of the necessaries This being so, no binding obligation to pay for necessaries can arise until they have been supplied to the infant; and he cannot make a binding executory agreement to purchase necessaries. In this case, the defendant gave up the room and repudiated the agreement so far as it was in his power to do so in the most positive and equivocal manner. The plea of infancy, then,, under the circumstances, must prevail.

Question 27: What is the suit for in this case? Was the contract one for necessaries? Was the minor held liable? Why?

§ 42. (Contracts, Sec. 10.) Disaffirmance of minor's voidable contracts.

Ratification.

(a) Disaffirmance.

Case 28. Wuller v. Chuse Groc. Co., 248 Illinois Reports 398.

Facts: Wuller, while a minor, subscribed and paid for 15 shares of stock in the Grocery Co. at the par value of $1,500. He also acted as secretary and treasurer, and was a salesman and bookkeeper of the corporation at a salary of $12.00 and $15.00 a week for about two years and a half. At the end of that time, being still a minor, he brings a suit to recover the $1,500 so paid, tendering back the stock. He had judgment below and the Grocery Company appeals.

Points Involved: Whether the executed contract of a minor in reference to personal property is voidable by him. Whether being emancipated or in business makes any difference.

*

DUNN, J.: "The position of the appellant (defendant) is that an infant, having advanced money upon a contract voidable because of his infancy, cannot rescind the contract and recover the money. If the fact that the payment of money upon his contract was voluntary precluded its recovery, the right to avoid the contract would be no protection to an infant against his inexperience and the wiles of swindlers and cheats. Such voluntary payment may be recovered upon the avoidance of the contract. The consideration, or such part of it as remains in the possession or control of the minor must be returned, but if he has lost or expended it, so that he cannot restore it, he is not obliged to make restitution. Contracts concerning personal property and executory agreements may be avoided by the infant either during or after his minority. The shares of capital stock of a corporation are personal property, the same as promissory notes or bonds. An infant's purchase of such stock