Aldrich v. Grimes
Superior Court of New Hampshire
Assumpsit on a promissory note. Plea, the general issue, and a brief statement, setting forth that the defendant, at the time of making the note, was an infant. The signature of the note was admitted ; and it appeared that the defendant, at the time of making the note, was a minor.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit on a promissory note. Plea, the general issue, and a brief statement, setting forth that the defendant, at the time of making the note, was an infant. The signature of the note was admitted ; and it appeared that the defendant, at the time of making the note, was a minor. The plaintiff relied upon a ratification, by the defendant, after he was of full age ; and introduced testimony tending to show that this note and another were given for a potash kettle, irons, leaches, &c. — that at the time of the sale the plaintiff informed the defendant that the kettle was cracked, or had a…
1Opinion of the CourtParker, C. J.
It is well settled that an infant may ratify contracts, made during his minority, after he becomes of age ; and this as well by his acts as by an express promise. 1 N. H. Rep. 75, Roberts vs. Wiggin; 3 N. H. Rep. 315, Orvis vs. Kimball; 9 N. H. Rep. 436, Hoit vs. Underhill. Thus if an infant continues in possession, after his full age, of lands demised to him during his minority, he affirms the lease. Com. Dig., Enfant, C, 6. So where he continues in possession of land'conveyed to him, or sells it, he affirms the contract. So where an infant took the note of a third person in payment for work…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Kimball v. CunninghamMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1808
- Roberts v. WigginSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1817
- Merriam v. WilkinsSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1833
- Hoit v. UnderhillSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1838
- Wright v. SteeleSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1819
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Edgerly v. ShawSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1852