Story Case

Henry Myers, an infant, sold his automobile to Howard Long. Long paid a reasonable sum for the machine. Shortly after this sale was made, John Burnett secured a judgment against Myers for a debt which Myers had refused to pay. This money was owed for necessities delivered by Burnett. When the judgment was secured, Burnett tried to levy an attachment on the automobile saying that since Myers was an infant the contract of sale could be avoided, and the property treated as belonging to Myers. Is Burnett right in this procedure?

Ruling Court Case. Cogley Vs. Cushman, Volume 16 Minnesota Reports, Page 354

Cogley, an infant, bought a threshing machine of Cushman. Cogley paid Cushman $100 in cash and gave a note for $700. The notes were secured to Cushman by a mortgage in the threshing machine and two horses. The notes stipulated that Cushman had the right to sell the machine and horses and thereby secure payment of the $700 if Cogley defaulted in the payment. Cogley did default and Cushman took the machine and horses, and sold the horses. Cogley brings this action for the conversion of the horses, claiming that as an infant he had the right to avoid the contract and Cushman had no right to take the horses.

Justice McMillan gave the opinion of the Court:

There is no evidence that Cogley by any act disaffirmed the contract before the time when Cushman took the horses and sold them under the mortgage. At the time this was done the contract was still in force and Cushman could act thereunder. Had Cogley at any time prior thereto indicated his desire or intention to disaffirm, then the contract would have been entirely at an end. Title to the threshing machine would have revested in Cushman and he would have no right to take the horses. The disaffirmance of the contract by some act prior to the removal of the horses was necessary to make this act of Cushman lawful. As it stands, the taking of the horses was lawful under the contract since it had not been disaffirmed. Judgment was given for the defendant.

Ruling Law. Story Case Answer

In the case of a contract made with an infant which has been completed, the infant must, if he desires to avoid it, do some overt act showing his intention to disaffirm; otherwise the contract is in full force and he is bound. Of course third persons must also comply with the contract. Therefore, in the Story Case, since Myers did not disaffirm the contract with reference to the automobile, it was in full force, and Burnett could not treat the automobile as the property of the infant.