Reed v. Batchelder
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Assumpsit on a promissory note made by the defendant, on the 16th of July, 1835, payable to Reed & Dudley, or bearer. The defence was infancy.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit on a promissory note made by the defendant, on the 16th of July, 1835, payable to Reed & Dudley, or bearer. The defence was infancy. At the trial in the court of common pleas, before Warren, J. the plaintiff offered evidence tending to prove that in July, 1839, after the defendant was twenty-one years old, and while said note was in the hands of the promisees, the defendant made to Henry Reed, one of the promisees, a new promise to pay the same, under such circumstances as rendered him liable upon the note. The defendant objected to the admission of this evi dence, but the judge…
1Opinion of the CourtShaw, C. J.
The question, what acts of an infant are voidable and what void, is not very definitely settled by the authorities ; but in general it may be said that the tendency of modern decisions is, to consider them as voidable, and thus leave the infant to affirm or disaffirm them, when he comes of age, as his *560own views of his interest may lead him to elect. 2 Kent Com. (3d ed.) 235.
It seems to be established, in Massachusetts, that the note of an infant is voidable only, and may be regarded as a good foundation for a new promise when he comes of age. Whitney v. Dutch, 14 Mass. 457. Martin v. Mayo, 10…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Whitney v. DutchMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1817
- Goodsell v. MyersNew York Supreme Court · 1830
- Martin v. MayoMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1813
3Cited by1 opinion
- Stratford Credit Corp. v. MartinMassachusetts District Court, Appellate Division · 1948