Story Case

Abel Burnham, an infant nineteen years old, purchased a suit of clothes from Fred Schiller for fifty dollars. The money was paid on the delivery of the clothes. Two days later Burnham ruined the clothes in an automobile accident, and thereupon demanded the return of the fifty dollars paid to Schiller. In a court proceeding Schiller attempted to show that the suit was a necessity. He failed in this because it was apparent that Burnham had an abundance of wearing apparel given him by his father. Schiller did not prove that the sale was fair and reasonable and free from bad faith. Will the Court compel him to return the money?

Ruling Court Case. Johnson Vs. Northwestern Life Insurance Company, Volume 56 Minnesota Reports, Page 356; Volume 26 Lawyers' Reports, Annotated, Page 187

On the 25th day of October, 1888, the plaintiff, Johnson, who was then a minor seventeen years of age, obtained a policy of insurance on his own life in the Northwestern Life Insurance Company for $1,000. During the time he held the policy he made eight semiannual payments amounting to the total sum of $186.32. Immediately after the plaintiff attained his full age he served notice upon the company that he had elected to avoid the contract and demanded the money. The company refused to return the money, and the plaintiff thereupon brought this suit to recover the same.

Mr. Justice Mitchell, in his opinion, said: "Our conclusion is that where the personal contract of an infant, beneficial to himself, has been wholly or partly executed on both sides, but the infant has disposed of what he has received, or the benefits recovered by him are such that they cannot be restored, he cannot recover back what he has paid, if the contract was a fair and reasonable one, and free from any fraud or bad faith on part of the other party; but the burden is on the other party to prove that such was the character of the contract."

Since the defendant did not show that the contract was a fair and reasonable one, and entered into without fraud, it was held that the plaintiff might recover.

Accordingly, judgment was given for the plaintiff.

Ruling Law. Story Case Answer

It is the general rule that a person, upon avoiding sales made by him during minority, may recover all personal property which he has sold or otherwise disposed of. This rule applies to money as well as to other personal property.

He may recover it from the person to whom he sold it or from any other person who may subsequently have bought it in good faith. The infant may recover personal property without waiting until he becomes of age, as is true in the case of Real Property. In the Story Case, Schiller should have proven that the sale was fair and reasonable and free of all bad faith. Because of the failure to do this, he will be compelled to return the money.