Since the rule of law has been changed, so that the accepted understanding is, that an infant's express contracts are to be now considered as voidable, and not void contracts, it may be said that the courts for the most part are inclined to agree that the infant's contract of suretyship is voidable, and not void, unless the contract would necessarily operate to unduly prejudice the rights of the infant. It remains therefore with the infant in the case of contracts of an uncertain nature to exercise his election, of avoiding the contract if he sees fit.1 In Harner vs. Dipple,2 the court says: "This immunity to infants (the right to avoid the contract), is intended for their protection against imposition and imprudence and is continued after their majority as a mere personal privilege * * * whenever he the (infant) arrives at majority * * * the law presumes that he has acquired all the wisdom and prudence necessary for the proper management of his affairs; hence the law imposes on him full responsibility for all his acts and contracts." An infant therefore who ratifies his contract of suretyship after reaching his majority with a full knowledge of the fact that he was not bound on the original contract, will be bound by his ratification. It may be added here that infancy of the principal debtor, would be no defense to the liability of an adult surety.3

Keans vs. Bagcott, 2 H. Black, 611. 2 31 O. S., 72.

3 Dexter vs. Planchard, 11 Allen, 365.