Bartlett v. Bailey
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
AsstjmpsIt, to recover the price of milk sold and delivered to the defendant, who wa,s a minor engaged in the milk business. The milk purchased of the plaintiff was sold by the defendant to his customers. The defendant pleaded infancy.
1Opinion of the CourtClark, J.
In Heath v. Stevens, 48 N. H. 251, 252, Perley, C. J., said, — “ It is now extremely well settled, that if an infant would rescind his voidable contract, and recover back what he has paid under it, or compensation for what he has done under it, he must first restore the tiring that he received under the contract, if it remains in specie, and within his control ; or if not, must account for the value of it. But if what he has received has been consumed, or for any other cause cannot be returned in specie, he may recover for what he paid or did under the contract by deducting what he received,…
2Cited by5 opinions
- People's Trust Co. v. MerrillSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1918
- Stack v. CavanaughSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1891
- Wooldridge v. LavoieSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1918
- Young v. CurrierSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1885
- Hagerty v. Nashua Look Co.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1883