Story Case

Joseph Hulbert, an infant seventeen years old, had been given a valuable horse which he sold to Harold Sherman for $400. Sherman paid Hulbert in cash and the latter purchased an automobile with the money. The day following the purchase of the machine, it was 'destroyed in a collision with a heavy dray wagon. Thereupon Hulbert went to Sherman and demanded the return of the horse without offering any money to Sherman. Can Sherman be compelled to surrender the horse without getting anything in return?

Ruling Court Case. Frank Spawls Vs. Bulloch, Volume 93 Texas Reports, Page 188; Volume 47 Lawyers' Reports, Annotated, Page 326

Frank Spawls, the plaintiff, was at the age of seventeen persuaded by his stepfather to sell certain land which he owned in order to obtain money to invest in business with his stepfather. The land in question was sold to the defendant, Bullock. The latter knew that the plaintiff was a minor, but made no objection to the transaction. The plaintiff received $666.66 for his land. This he invested in the business conducted by his stepfather. During the time he was connected with the business he drew out $100 and squandered it. Thereafter he sold the remaining part of his interest in the business to his stepfather. In payment thereof the stepfather conveyed to the plaintiff property reasonably worth $1,200, but upon which there was a mortgage of $900, which was assumed by the minor. Frank, not being able to raise the money necessary to pay off this mortgage, was compelled to sell the property. He sold his interest therein for $150. He spent this money in a manner not accounted for but it was shown at the time of the trial that he had no part of it, or anything purchased therewith. When he reached full age he instituted this action against Bullock, seeking to recover the land. The defendant admitted that Spawls was entitled to avoid the sale, and recover the land, provided he returned the $666.66 which had been paid him.

Decision: An infant is under no obligation to return any part of the consideration or benefit by him received under a voidable contract, unless it appears that he has the same in his possession or under his control.

Mr. Justice Williams said in part: "That one disaffirming his deed upon the ground that it was executed when he was a minor, must return the consideration, if it is still in his possession or control, is a proposition about which there is no doubt. It may also be true that, if he has used it during minority for purposes for which the law would permit him to charge his estate, as for obtaining necessaries, he must account for its equivalent."

Since in this case Spawls had no part of the money left in his possession or under his control, and since it was not spent for necessaries, it was held that the plaintiff might recover the land of the defendant, without being under any obligation to return the $666.66 or any part thereof.

Judgment was given for the plaintiff.

Ruling Law. Story Case Answer

Because of the immaturity of infants, the policy of the law is to protect them from the consequences of acts done and contracts made during their minority. This protection is fulfilled in the right given to the infant to avoid such acts and contracts. When an infant offers to return the benefit which he has received under a voidable contract, clearly he should be able to avoid it and recover money by him paid or property conveyed to the other party. The law is clearly to that effect.

If he has the consideration or benefit still in his possession, or if he has expended it for necessaries, he should not be permitted to disaffirm the contract unless he is willing to return what he has received or its equivalent to the other contracting party.

But suppose that the consideration or benefit received by him under the contract has been squandered. Shall the protection be extended to allowing him to disaffirm under these circumstances? The policy of the law is to protect him from the indiscretion of youth.

That he may recover under these circumstances is a proposition concerning which there is some doubt, but the general rule is that he may recover, even though he be unable to restore the consideration or benefit. In the Story Case, Sherman can be compelled to return the horse to Hulbert, and since the latter has lost $400 he need not give anything in return to Sherman.