Story Case

George Nicoll, while a freshman in college, secured board from Mrs. Reeves agreeing to pay $6 a week therefor. Although he agreed to pay that amount, it appeared that it was reasonably worth only $4.50 per week. At the end of the first month Mrs. Reeves presented him a bill for $24 which he refused to pay. She was obliged to sue him for the money and in defense he contended that he was not liable because he was an infant when he entered into the contract. Should Mrs. Reeves be entitled to recover? If so, how much should she recover?

Ruling Court Case. Tupper Vs. Caldwell, Volume 12 Metcalf's Reports, Page 559; Volume 46 American Decisions, Page 704

The defendant, a minor, was the owner of a house and lot. He and his mother lived in the house. It was old, dilapidated and badly in need of repairs. The plaintiff, at the request of the defendant, did the necessary repairs to make it habitable.

The defendant refused to pay for the work which was done by the plaintiff and the plaintiff brought this action to recover for the same. To the action the defendant pleaded that he was an infant when the agreement was made and it was therefore not binding upon him. On the other hand, the plaintiff argued that the plea of infancy was no good because the obligation was incurred for necessaries and that such an obligation cannot be avoided.

Mr. Justice Dewey said in part:

"An infant may make a valid contract for necessaries and the matter of doubt in the present case is what expenditures are embraced in the term 'necessaries.' An infant may bind himself to pay for his necessary meat, drink, apparel, necessary physic, and such other necessaries. And, likewise, for his good teaching or instruction, whereby he may profit himself afterwards. - The wants supplied are, however, personal, either those for the body, as food, clothing, lodging and the like, or those necessary for the proper cultivation of the mind, as instruction suitable and requisite to the useful development of the intellectual powers, and qualifying the individual to engage in business when he shall arrive at the age of manhood.

"No authority has been found which in our opinion sustains the position that a minor is liable for expenditures upon his real estate, of the character and under the circumstances here stated." It was therefore decided that the plaintiff could not recover.

Ruling Law. Story Case Answer

No obligation incurred by an infant during his minority is absolutely binding upon him. But there are certain obligations which an infant may not avoid. One of these is for necessaries furnished to him during minority. If an infant were not able to bind himself for necessaries he would have great trouble in getting them and in many instances would be a burden to society. The general rule is that an infant is liable on executed contracts for necessaries. When necessaries have been furnished to him the person who furnishes them is entitled to collect therefor. But the infant is not liable upon executory contracts for necessaries; that is, he is not liable for necessaries which he has promised to take. He is not liable unless the necessaries have actually been furnished him.

This seems to be an obligation not based upon the contract, but an obligation imposed by law. He is not necessarily liable for the necessaries in the amount and manner in which he contracted, but the law compells him to pay a reasonable price for them regardless of the price which he promised to pay. What constitutes necessaries is a question of fact for the jury. In general necessaries are only such things as relate to the infant's person or personal needs. This includes food, lodging, clothes, and a reasonable amount of education. In the Story Case, Mrs. Reeves could not recover the contract price for the board if this was unreasonable, but she could recover a reasonable sum therefor.