General Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Edwards

T. T. Edwards, the defendant, disaffirmed his contract, demanded judgment for what he had paid on the truck (which was seized by plaintiff under claim and delivery — not replevined), and set up the defense of infancy. All the issues were answered by consent of the parties to the controversy except the second: “Was the defendant T. T. Edwards at said time a minor, as alleged in the defendant T. T. Edwards’ answer?” This issue was submitted to the jury by consent and was answered “No.”

“In Chandler v. Jones, 172 N. C., 569 (572), Allen, J., says: 'The contract of an infant is voidable and not…