Pool v. Pratt
Supreme Court of Vermont
TH1F!~ was an action of assunnpsit on a promise of marriage..The declaration was in commoi~ form, alledging that the promise was made on the first day of December, 1811. The defendant pleaded in bar, that the said Rachael Pool ought not to have or maintain her said action thereof against the said E. B. Pratt, for that he the said E. B. Pratt, at the time of making the said supposed promise and undertaking, in the plaintiff’s declaration alledged, was an infant within the age…
Read the full summary
TH1F!~ was an action of assunnpsit on a promise of marriage..The declaration was in commoi~ form, alledging that the promise was made on the first day of December, 1811. The defendant pleaded in bar, that the said Rachael Pool ought not to have or maintain her said action thereof against the said E. B. Pratt, for that he the said E. B. Pratt, at the time of making the said supposed promise and undertaking, in the plaintiff’s declaration alledged, was an infant within the age of twenty one years, to wit, of the age of twenty years. To this plea there was a demurrer and joinder.
1Opinion of the Court
Chipman, Ch. J.
delivered the opinion of the Court. It is an ancient doctrine, as old as the common law, that an infant shall not, in general be bound by his contract; he is under an incapacity to bind himself by his contract — that executory contracts by an infant are void. Some contracts made by an infant, however, are not void, but voidable only, which he may affirm* or disaffirm at full age.
This incapacity of an infant is his privilege, and is intended for his advantage, to protect him from those impositions, to which, from his inexperience, he is perpetually liable. This priviledge does…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Parton v. HerveyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1854
- Wallin ex rel. Wallin v. Highland Park Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1905
- Fisher v. BernardSupreme Court of Vermont · 1893