Story Case

George Borrowman, an infant, conveyed twenty-five acres of land to James Gould, who paid a fair value for the property. Gould conveyed the land to Simon Blyth, who later sold it to Edward Hilton. Hilton paid twice as much for the land as did Gould when it was first sold. Blyth knew that Borrowman was an infant when he conveyed the property, but Hilton did not. After Borrowman became twenty-one years old, he offered to return the money he had paid for the land and demanded its return. Hilton refused on the ground that he had paid twice the amount Borrowman had received for the land, and also because he did not know that Borrowman was an infant when the land was first sold. Can Hilton build a good defense on these grounds?

Ruling Court Case. Buchanan Vs. Hubbard, Volume 96 Indiana Reports, Page 1

Mrs. Buchanan, at the age of twenty years, eleven months and twenty days, executed to one Pennington a deed to land of hers, for which she was to receive $1,8000. Some time after she had reached her majority she decided that she would avoid the deed because of her infancy at the time she executed it. In the meantime the land had been conveyed to the defendant, Hubbard, who paid full value therefor, not knowing of the fact that there was in the chain of title a grantor who was under the disability of infancy. He, therefore, contended that the land could not be recovered of him, because he was a bona fide purchaser without notice of the defective title.

Decision: The fact that bona fide purchasers have acquired rights does not preclude a grantor from disaffirming a deed made before arriving at full age. The deed of an infant may be avoided whether the land is held by the original grantor or has passed into the hands of others.

It was decided that the plaintiff could recover the land.

Ruling Law. Story Case Answer

Conveyance of land made by an infant will pass title thereto. This title is, of course, defective, in that the infant may within the proper time, avoid the sale, and demand its return. So long, however, as the infant does not avoid the sale, or if he has affirmed it, the title thereto is as good and valid as if the infant had been an adult when the conveyance was made. The right of the infant to disaffirm is not affected by the number of transfers which have been made since it was conveyed by him; nor is it affected by the fact that the land has been transferred for value to a bona fide purchaser, who had no notice of the fact that some original grantor in the chain of title was an infant.

Therefore, in the Story Case, Hilton cannot retain the land, but must surrender it to Borrowman. The fact that Hilton paid twice as much for it as Borrowman originally received, and that he did not know about Borrowman's infancy is immaterial.