Story Case

William Edwards, an infant eighteen years old, hired a horse and wagon from the Jackson Livery Company for the purpose of driving to "Winchester, a town five miles away. Instead of driving only to Winchester and retaining the horse for one day as he had agreed to do, Edwards went to Aurora fifteen miles away and had possession of the horse for three days. The Jackson company brought suit against Edwards for damages resulting from this wrong. Edwards put in defense that he was an infant and not liable on this contract for hire made with the company. The company stated that it did not bring its suit on the contract but for the wrong done by the infant. Can the company recover?

Ruling Court Case. Fitts Vs. Hall, Volume 9 New Hampshire Reports, Page 441

The plaintiff was a wholesale dealer in hats. The defendant, wishing to purchase a consignment of hats from the defendant, falsely and fraudulently represented that he was of full age and legally competent to contract. As a matter of fact he was not of full age.

The plaintiff, however, acting reasonably and in good faith, relied upon the representations of the defendant and sold the goods desired. In payment therefore he received a note made by the defendant. At maturity of the note, the infant refused to pay for it, and thereupon this action was brought in deceit for damages. It was contended by the defendant that he was not liable because he was an infant when the representation was made.

Decision: This action was not brought upon the contract, but it is an action in deceit for damages. Though an infant may avoid his contracts when not made for necessaries he is liable for civil wrongs. This is true even though the indirect result be that the contract is enforced against the infant.

Ruling Law. Story Case Answer

We have seen that generally an infant is not held liable on contracts made by him during his minority, unless they are contracts made for necessaries. Also, an infant is not relieved from civil liability for damages arising from his civil wrongs, or torts, because of his infancy. However, when the civil wrong arises from, or is connected with, a contract, a different problem presents itself.

To enforce the civil liability in every case of this kind, would deprive the infant of a large degree of the protection which is given him by law. On the other hand, a great deal of injustice may be perpetrated upon third persons if he escapes from all civil liability in such cases.

If the wrong complained of is such that it would have been a wrongful act regardless of the contract, he may be held for damages even though the indirect effect of enforcing the liability is to enforce the contract. If however, wrong consists solely in the breach of the contract, liability for damages will not be enforced against an infant.

In the Story Case, there was wrongful intent on the part of the infant and there was more than a mere breach of contract. There was a positive departure from the object of the contract, a positive and willful wrong, apart from the contract and for this the infant is liable.