Money, as such, is not regarded as necessary. "An infant," it was said in a New York case, "is not answerable for money borrowed, though expended by him for necessaries; nor for money borrowed to buy necessaries, unless it was actually so applied. And perhaps the infant is not answerable in that case, unless the lender either lays out the money himself, or sees it laid out, for necessaries. But where this is done the infant is answerable for the money the same as he would have been for the necessaries had they been directly furnished by the lender." 96

92 Phillips v. Lloyd, 18 R. I. 99, 25 Atl. 909; Tupper v. Cadwell, 12 Mete. (Mass.) 559, 46 Am. Dec. 704; Wallis v. Bardwell, 126 Mass. 366; West v. Gregg's Adm'r, 1 Grant Cas. (Pa.) 53. Nor for a loan of money to pay off incumbrances. Bicknell v. Bicknell, I11 Mass. 265; Magee v. Welsh, 18 Cal. 155. See "Infants," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 50; Cent. Dig. §§ 114-127.

93 New Hampshire Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Noyes, 32 N. H. 345. See "Infants;' Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 50; Cent. Dig. §§ 114-127.

94 Crafts v. Carr, 24 R. I. 397, 53 Atl. 275, 60 L. R. A. 128, 96 Am. St. Rep. 721 and note; Munson v. Washband, 31 Conn. 303, 83 Am. Dec. 151; Barker v. Hibbard, 54 N. H. 539, 20 Am. Rep. 160; Askey v. Williams, 74 Tex. 294, 11 S. W. 1101, 5 L. R. A. 176; Cobbey v. Buchanan, 48 Neb. 391, 67 N. W. 176; Sutton v. Heinzle, 84 Kan. 756, 115 Pac. 560, 34 L. R. A. (N. S.) 238. See "Infants," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 50; Cent. Dig. §§ 114-127.

95 Englebert v. Troxell. 40 Neb. 195. 58 N. W. 852, 26 L. R. A. 177, 42 Am. St. Rep. 665; Phelps v. Worcester, 11 N. H. 51; Dillon v. Bowles, 77 Mo. 603; Mclsaac v. Adams, 190 Mass. 117, 76 N. E. 654, 112 Am. St. Rep. 321, 5 Ann. Cas. 729 (in which it is said, per Kuowlton, C. J.: "Ordinarily rights of property are to be protected by a guardian, and not left to the care of the minor himself or to the irresponsible action of third persons"). Contra: Epperson v. Nugent, 57 Miss. 45, 34 Am. Rep. 434; Searcy v. Hunter, 81 Tex. 644, 17 S. W. 372, 26 Am. St. Rep. 837. And see Owens v. Gunther, 75 Ark. 37, 86 S. W. 851, 5 Ann. Cas. 130 and note. See "Infants," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 50; Cent. Dig. §§ 114-127.

96 Randall v. Sweet, 1 Denio (N. Y.) 460. And see Kilgore v. Rich. 83 Me. 305, 22 Atl. 176, 12 L. R. A. 859, 23 Am. St. Rep. 780; Swift v. Bennett, 10 Cush. (Mass.) 436; Genereux v. Sibley, 18 R. I. 43, 25 Atl. 345; Price V. Sanders, 60 Ind. 310; Haine's Adm'r v. Tarrant. 2 Hill (S. C.) 400; Conn v. Co-burn, 7 N. H. 368, 26 Am. Dec. 746: Beeler v. Young, 1 Bibb (Ky.) 519; Earle v. Peale, 1 Salk. 387. He may, however, be held liable in equity for money borrowed and expended by him for necessaries. Price v. Sanders, 60 Ind. 310; Watson v. Cross, 2 Duv. (Ky.) 147; Hickman v. Hall's Adm'rs, 5 Litt. (Ky.) 338; Beeler v. Young, 1 Bibb (Ky.) 521. See "Infants," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 51; Cent. Dig. § 111.

Necessaries To Wife And Children

A man is bound by law to support and care for his wife, and an infant is therefore liable for necessaries furnished her.97 And he has also been held liable for necessaries furnished to his child.98 There is, however, authority for the contrary view as to children.99

Persons Supplying Infant Act At Their Peril

Whether things supplied to an infant were necessaries is to be determined by the infant's actual circumstances. If a tradesman supplies expensive goods to an infant because he thinks that the infant's circumstances are better than they really are, or if he supplies goods of a useful class, not knowing that the infant is already sufficiently supplied, he does so at his peril.1