It is deemed unnecessary to discuss here, the general incapacities of certain parties to enter generally into contract obligations, or to secure to themselves contract rights by their own agreements. But it may be stated broadly that certain persons under rule of contract law are totally incompetent to enter into any contract, and that in other cases the law protects certain persons from liability if they see fit under the circumstances of their situation, to take advantage of their rights and elect not to be bound on their agreement as made. These general rules of contract law apply equally to the contract of sale. The subject is therefor properly treated in works on general contract law. Under the rule that one who buys goods from some person, other than the true owner, gets no title at all, such persons could themselves convey nothing, and if they do transfer, or are assisted in the transfer of the goods so bought, the persons so selling must answer to the true owner,2 even though they sell innocently. It was formerly thought that the owner of the goods could not sell his own property if it was in the possession of a third person who held it under an adverse claim of title.3 These cases seem to be against the modern authorities which say the owner may waive the tort and sell and convey good title.4 The infant, whose contract is ordinarily voidable, is not bound on his express contract to buy necessaries, but will be bound to pay what the court thinks is the fair and reasonable price of the necessaries,5 the same having been furnished him under the express contract. An infant's contracts of sale are likewise voidable. He may recover the thing sold, any time either before, or after he reaches his majority, and he must return the consideration if he still has it, but if not, he may nevertheless recover his chattel sold.6

2 Sharp vs. Parks, 48 I11.; 511 Dudley vs. Hawley, 40 Barb., 397.

3 McGoon vs. AnKenny, 11 I11., 558; Gardner vs. Adams, 12 Wend, 297.

4 Tome vs. Dubois, 6 Wall., 548; Hall vs. Gardner, 2 N. Y., 293.

5 Stone vs. Denison, 13 Pick, 7;

Morton vs. Steward, 5 111.

App., 533. 6 Carpenter vs. Carpenter, 45 Ind.,

142; Chandler vs. Simmons,

97 Mass., 508.

Lunatics are not bound on a contract of sale, and the only exception would be, where they have not been formally adjudged insane, and the person dealing with them did so in good faith without the knowledge of the insanity.7 So the general contract rule in reference to drunkards, married women, spendthrifts, etc., holds good in the matter of contracts of sale. With the power and right, now in married women, to contract generally, has come the rule of statute, holding the wife equally liable with the husband for necessaries supplied to the family.8 In the absence of the statute, the husband is liable for necessary supplies furnished the family.9

Where a sale is made by a trustee, one who purchases with knowledge of the trust, is chargeable with the same trust in respect to the property, as the trustee from whom he purchases. This is true, even though the purchaser pays a valuable consideration. If he buys with notice of the equitable rights of the third person, the property will be held subject to the equities of such person.10