Legal Opinion

Kelly v. Halox

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Decided May 26, 1926PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWait, J.

The exceptions saved by the defendant cannot be sustained.

It is the established law of this Commonwealth that a minor who disaffirms a contract need not put the other party thereto in statu quo before beginning an action for the recovery of what he has parted with. White v. New Bedford Cotton Waste Corp. 178 Mass. 20, 24, and cases cited.

If the contract is one of partnership, it is true that the minor’s interest in the funds of the partnership is said to be subject to the claims of firm creditors, Godfrey v. Mutual Finance Corp. 242 Mass. 197, 200, Moley v. Brine, 120 Mass. 324, Page v.…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. McDonough v. Metropolitan Life InsuranceMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1917
  2. Parsons v. New York, New Haven, & Hartford RailroadMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1913
  3. Knudson v. General Motorcycle Sales Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1918
  4. White v. New Bedford Cotton Waste Corp.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1901
  5. Moley v. BrineMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1876

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Frye v. YasiMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1951
  2. Meteor Products Co. v. Société d'Electro-Chemie et d'Electro-MétallurgieMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1928
  3. Keegan v. O'DonnellMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1941
  4. Peterson v. BoberNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1952
  5. Boston Edison Co. v. ForbesMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1976

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API