Hall v. Butterfield
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Assumpsit, to recover for goods sold and delivered. The defendant pleaded infancy, and the question was reserved whether that was a bar to the plaintiffs’ recovery. The defendant was engaged in trade, and the goods were purchased by him for the purposes of trade, and were not necessaries within the ordinary meaning of that term.
1Opinion of the CourtStanley, J.
The defendant interposes the plea of infancy as a bar to the plaintiffs’ right to recover, and, so far as this right depends on an express contract, it is a complete answer. The express contract, on which the plaintiffs’ rely, was voidable at the defendant’s election, but it does not necessarily follow, because the defendant exercises his privilege to avoid the contract, that he is under no liability to the plaintiffs.
The right of infants, lunatics, persons non compos mentis, and drunkards, when in such a state as to be entirely deprived of reason, to avoid their contracts, is placed on the…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Sanford v. . SanfordNew York Court of Appeals · 1875
- Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. . HuntNew York Court of Appeals · 1880
- Price v. FurmanSupreme Court of Vermont · 1855
- Ingraham v. . BaldwinNew York Court of Appeals · 1853
- Allen ex rel. Stephens v. BerryhillSupreme Court of Iowa · 1869
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Greensboro Morris Plan Co. v. PalmerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1923
- Dodson Ex Rel. Dodson v. ShraderTennessee Supreme Court · 1992
- Halbman v. LemkeWisconsin Supreme Court · 1980
- Kilgore v. Loyal Protective Ass'nSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1917
- McConnell v. McConnellSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1909
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.