Wright v. Steele
Superior Court of New Hampshire
A negotiable note, executed by an infant, is not void so as to be incapable of ratification after the infant becomes of age. A re-promise.. hy.jin infant is valic^thoughjaot made till after the commencement of a suit against him.
Read the full summary
A negotiable note, executed by an infant, is not void so as to be incapable of ratification after the infant becomes of age. A re-promise.. hy.jin infant is valic^thoughjaot made till after the commencement of a suit against him. What amounts to a re-promise and the meaning of the word void as applied to an infant’s contracts. ;- The debts of an infant, when proved in the usual manner, are presumed to be “ justly due and, when he promised to pay “ all justly due,” if fraud or injustice existed, the proof of-them devolves on him. This was an action of assumpsit. The declaration contained two…
1Opinion of the Court
Woodbury, J.,
pro curia.
In cases of this description, there seems to be no doubt, that after an infant becomes of áge, a mere acknowledgment of a debt, previously incurred, is not sufficient to bar the plea of infancy. Strange 690.—Bull. N. P. 155.—Cro. Eliz. 126, 700.—2 Es. Ca. 628.-3 East Ca. 159.—5 Es. Ca. 102.-Peak's Ev. 260.(1) Just. Insti. b 4, t, 3, s, 7.
There must be an actual new promise. Here the new promise was expressed by the words, “ all, that i$ justly a y0ur dUe, shall be paid and, in our opinion, it was more express and absolute than many others which have been adjudged valid.
T…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Roof v. StaffordNew York Supreme Court · 1827
- Merriam v. WilkinsSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1833
- Orvis v. KimballSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1825
- Aldrich v. GrimesSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1839
- Russell v. AbbottSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1843