Quasi contracts, or so called contracts created by law because of a legal duty on the part of the person bound, are as binding on an infant as on an adult.41 The common law creates, as an incident to marriage, a duty on the part of the husband to pay the antenuptial debts of the wife, and this liability is imposed on infant as well as adult husbands.42 The liability of an infant for necessaries furnished him is quasi contractual.43
The rule that contracts of infants are voidable does not apply to contracts entered into by them under authority or direction of a statute or of the common law. For instance, a voluntary assignment of his property by an infant debtor imprisoned for debt, made under a statute allowing "every person" to make such an assignment, has been held valid and binding on him, notwithstanding his infancy.44 So, also, where an infant executed a bond for the support of his bastard child, in pursuance of a statute, it was held that the statute applied to infants, and that the bond was valid;45 and a contract of enlistment in the army by an infant has been held valid.46
39 Henry v. Root, 33 N. Y. 526; Fonda v. Van Home, 15 Wend. (N. T.) 631, 30 Am. Dec. 77; Holmes v. Rice, 45 Mich. 142, 7 N. W. 772; Bool v. Mix, 17 Wend. (N. Y.) 119, 31 Am. Dec. 285; LEMMON v. BEEMAN, 45 Ohio St. 505, 15 N. E. 476, Throckmorton Cas. Contracts, 140; Kendrick v. Neisz, 17 Colo. 506, 30 Pac. 245; Owen v. Long, 112 Mass. 403; Fetrow v. Wiseman, 40 Ind. 14S; Mustard v. Wohlford's Heirs, 15 Grat. (Va.) 329, 76 Am. Dec. 209; Hunt v. Peake, 5 Cow. (N. Y.) 475, 15 Am. Dec. 475; Illinois Land & Loan Co. v. Bonner, 75 I11. 315; COLE v. PENNOYER, 14 I11. 158, Throckmorton Cas. Contracts, 131; Patchin v. Cromach, 13 Vt. 330; Bozeman v. Browning, 31 Ark. 364; Weaver v. Jones, 24 Ala. 420; Ridgeley v. Crandall, 4 Md. 435; McDonald v. Sargent, 171 Mass. 492, 51 N. E. 17; Union Cent. Life Ins. Co. v. Hilliard, 63 Ohio St. 478, 59 N. E. 230, 53 L. R. A. 462, 81 Am. St Rep. 644; Englebert v. Troxell, 40 Neb. 195, 58 N. W. 852, 26 L. R. A. 177, 42 Am. St. Rep. 655. See "Infants;' Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 47; Cent. Dig. §§ 99-110.
40 Pol. Cont 52; 1 Pars. Cont 244. 41 Bish. Cont. § 906.
42 Roach v. Quick, 9 Wend. (N. Y.) 238; Cole v. Seeley, 25 Vt. 220, 60 Am. Dec. 258; Butler v. Breck, 7 Metc. (Mass.) 164, 39 Am. Dec. 768; Mitchinson v. Hewson, 7 Term R. 348; Nicholson v. Wilborn, 13 Ga. 467; Anderson v. Smith, 33 Md. 465. See "Infanta;' Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) §§ 10, 50; Cent. Dig. §§ 11, 114-127.
43 Post, p. 199.
It should be mentioned that in some jurisdictions the court is authorized by statute to remove the disabilities of infants in particular cases.47 And in some states it is provided by statute that if an infant, by permission of his parent or guardian, or by permission of law, practices any profession or trade, or engages in any business as an adult, he shall be bound by all contracts connected with such trade, profession, or business.48 So, in at least one state, an infant of a certain age is authorized by statute to make a valid contract of life insurance.49