It is very generally laid down, even by courts which do not recognize the old doctrine as to void and voidable contracts, that an infant cannot appoint an agent or attorney, and that such appointment, and consequently all acts and contracts of the agent thereunder, are void,68 subject to an exception where the appointment is to do an act to the infant's advantage, as to receive seisin.69 It is noticeable, however, that nearly all the cases which lay down this rule are cases involving warrants of attorney to confess judgment and powers of attorney to execute a deed; and while as to these the rule appears to be firmly established, the tendency of the later decisions is to confine the rule to such cases, and in other cases to hold an infant's appointment of an agent and the acts and contracts made under it as voidable, and not void.70

Am. Dec. 777; Harney v. Owen, 4 Blackf. (Ind.) 337, 30 Am. Dec. 6G2. And see post, p. 219. See "Infants," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 1ft; Cent. Dig. §§ 99-110.

65 Goodsell v. Myers, 3 Wend. (N. Y.) 479; Fetrow v. Wiseman, 40 Ind. 148; Wamsley v. Lindenberger, 2 Rand. (Va.) 47S; Earle v. Reed, 10 Mete. (Mass.) 3S9; Minock v. Shortridge. 21 Mich. 314. See "Infants," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 47; Cent. Dig. §§ 99-110.

66 Nightingale v. Withington, 15 Mass. 272, 8 Am. Dec. 101; Willis v. Twam-bly, 13 Mass. 204; Frazier v. Massey, 14 Ind. 382; Briggs v. McCabe, 27 Ind. 327, 89 Am. Dec. 503. See "Infants," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 47; Cent. Dig. §§ 99-110.

67 Lease by or to infant. Zouch v. Parsons, 3 Burrows, 1794; Griffith v. Schwendennan, 27 Mo. 412. Submission to arbitration. Jones v. Bank, 8 N. Y. 228; Barnaby v. Barnaby, 1 Pick. (Mass.) 221. Settlement of disputed boundary. Brown v. Caldwell, 10 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 114, 13 Am. Dec. 660. Compromise of action or claim. Ware v. Cartledge, 24 Ala. 622, 60 Am. Dec. 489; Baker v. Loyett, 6 Mass. 78, 4 Am. Dec. 88. An infant's promise to marry is voidable at his or her option. Holt v. Ward Clarencieux, 2 Strange, 937, Ewell, Lead. Cas. 50; Hunt v. Peake, 5 Cow. (N. Y.) 475, 15 Am. Dec. 475; Rush v. Wick, 31 Ohio St 521, 27 Am. Rep. 523; Cannon v. Alsbury, 1 A. K. Marsh. (Ky.) 76, 10 Am. Dec. 709; Warwick v. Cooper, 5 Sneed (Tenn.) 659. And it has been held that a statute providing that persons under the age of 21 years "may contract and be joined in marriage" does not remove an infant's disability in this respect, so as to render him liable for breach of promise to marry. McConkey v. Barnes, 42 I11. App. 511. See "Infants," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 47; Cent. Dig. §§ 99-110.

68 Saunderson v. Marr, 1 H. Bl. 75; Doe v. Roberts, 16 M. & W. 778; Fonda v. Van Home, 15 Wend. (N. Y.) 631, 30 Am. Dec. 77; Bool v. Mix, 17 Wend. (N. Y.) 120, 31 Am. Dec. 285; Bennett v. Davis, 6 Cow. (N. Y.) 393; Knox v. Flack, 22 Pa. 337; Waples v. Hastings, 3 Har. (Del.) 403; Wainwright v. Wilkinson, 62 Md. 146; Philpot v. Bingham, 55 Ala. 439; Pyle v. Cravens, 4 Litt. (Ky.) 17; Lawrence's Lessee v. McArter, 10 Ohio, 37; Armitage v. Widoe, 36 Mich. 124; Trueblood v. Trueblood, 8 Ind. 195, 65 Am. Dec. 756; Holden v. Curry, 85 Wis. 504, 55 N. W. 965; Wambole v. Foote, 2 Dak. 1, 2 N. W. 239. See, also, Bartholomew v. Dighton, Cro. Eliz. 424; Whittingham's Case, 8 Co. 42b; Dexter v. Hall, 15 Wall. 9, 25, 21 L. Ed. 73; Tucker v. Moreland, 10 Pet. 58, 68, 9 L. Ed. 345; Flexner v. Dickerson, 72 Ala. 318; COLE v. PEN-NOYER, 14 I11. 158, Throckmorton Cas. Contracts, 131; Fetrow v. Wiseman, 40 Ind. 148, 155; Burns v. Smith, 29 Ind. App. 181, 64 N. E. 94, 94 Am. St. Rep. 268. See "Infants," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 5; Cent. Dig. §§ 5, 7.

69 Zouch v. Parsons, 3 Burr. 1794, 1805, 1808. See Duvall v. Graves, 7 Bush (Ky.) 461. Bee "Infants," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 5; Cent. Dig. §§ 5, 7.