Wheaton v. East
Tennessee Supreme Court
On the 10th of November, 1825, Wheaton sold to East lot No. 15, and conveyed to him by general warran-tee deed, for a full and fair price, to wit, upwards of ,$4000. The deed was proven and registered the same month. In the course of a few years, the lot, from the increase of the town and improvement made upon it by East, rose rapidly in value; and in 1830, Wheaton instituted his action of ejectment to recover it back, he having been a minor at the time of the sale to East.
Read the full summary
On the 10th of November, 1825, Wheaton sold to East lot No. 15, and conveyed to him by general warran-tee deed, for a full and fair price, to wit, upwards of ,$4000. The deed was proven and registered the same month. In the course of a few years, the lot, from the increase of the town and improvement made upon it by East, rose rapidly in value; and in 1830, Wheaton instituted his action of ejectment to recover it back, he having been a minor at the time of the sale to East. In the court below, m.uch testimony was introduced on both sides respecting his age and acts, and many bills of…
1Opinion of the CourtGreen, J.
The importance of this case, both as it regards the amount of property involved, and as it regards the principles which may be adopted in its decision, has induced the court to bestow upon it the most earnest consideration. Whether the deed of an infant should be considered void, or'only voidable, is a question, notwith-hstanding all the learned discussion by which it has been attempted to elucidate it, far from being free from difficulty.
All the books agree that some contracts of an infant are void, and that others are only voidable; but no general rule seems to be settled by which we may be…
2Cited by2 opinions
- American Surety Co. of New York v. City of ClarksvilleTennessee Supreme Court · 1958
- Harwell Motor Co. v. CunninghamCourt of Appeals of Tennessee · 1959