Young v. Bell
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia
Debt on a promissory note. The defendants [Bell & Wray] pleaded nil debet, and offered evidence of infancy in support of the plea. There is a difference between contracts void and voidable. This note was not void, but voidable, if infancy be pleaded, the plaintiff may reply that it was given for necessaries.
Read the full summary
Debt on a promissory note. The defendants [Bell & Wray] pleaded nil debet, and offered evidence of infancy in support of the plea. There is a difference between contracts void and voidable. This note was not void, but voidable, if infancy be pleaded, the plaintiff may reply that it was given for necessaries. The plaintiff ought to have notice of the defence, that he may be prepared to rebut it by evidence of necessaries furnished, or that the defendant was of age, or that after full age, he acknowledged the debt. If not pleaded, notice ought to be given, as in cases of set-off. It is not a…
1Opinion of the Court
THE COURT,
having taken time to consider, decided (nem. con.) that infancy cannot be given in evidence, on the plea of nil debet to an action of debt on a promissory note, being of opinion that it is not void, but voidable. See Hyer v. Hyatt [Case No. 6,977], at Washington, December, 1827.
2Cited by2 opinions
- Hyer v. HyattU.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia · 1827
- Abercrombie v. DupuisSupreme Court of the United States · 1803