As already stated, some courts still hold that contracts manifestly and without doubt prejudicial to the infant are void.55 Among the contracts which have been held void upon this ground may be mentioned conveyances of land without consideration,58 contracts of suretyship,57 and obligations with a penalty.58 This, however, is no longer the prevailing doctrine.

The rule is generally recognized that contracts entered into on behalf of an infant by an agent acting under a power of attorney from him are void, at least where authority to make the particular contract could be given by an adult only by power of attorney.59

Voidable Contracts

Under the prevailing doctrine that the contracts of an infant are voidable, and not void, contrary to the decisions mentioned in the preceding paragraph, some courts have held contracts of suretyship,60 and bonds with a penalty,61 merely voidable. Probably all courts regard as merely voidable purchases or sales and conveyances of real or personal property, including mortgages, for a consideration,62 partnership agreements,63 agreements to render services,64

55 Ante, p. 186. For a collection of cases on the question when a contract by an infant is to be held void and when merely voidable, see Ewell, Lead. Cas. 30-34, 44-46, 52-55. See 'Infants," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 47; Cent. Dig. §§ 09-110.

56 Robinson v. Coulter, 90 Tenn, 705, 18 S. W. 250, 25 Am. St Rep. 70S. See "Infants," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 47; Cent. Dig. §§ 99-110.

57 Maples v. Wightman, 4 Conn. 376, 10 Am. Dec. 149. See "Infants," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 1ft; Cent. Dig. §§ 99-110.

58 Fisher v. Mowbray, 8 East, 330; Baylis v. Dinely, 3 Maule & S. 477. See "Infants," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 47; Cent. Dig. §§ 99-110.

59 Trueblood v. Trueblood, 8 Ind. 195, 65 Am. Dec. 756. And see post, p. 191. See "Infants," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 5; Cent. Dig. §§ 5, 7.

60 Owen v. Long, 112 Mass. 403; Fetrow v. Wiseman, 40 Ind. 148; Williams v. Harrison, 11 S. C. 412; Harner v. Dipple, 31 Ohio St' 72, 27 Am. Rep. 496. See "Infants," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 47; Cent. Dig. §§ 99-110.

61 Mustard v. Wohlford's Heirs, 15 Grat. (Va.) 329, 76 Am. Dec. 209; Weaver v. Jones, 24 Ala. 420; Reed v. Lane, 61 Vt 431, 17 Atl. 796. See "Infants," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 47; Cent. Dig. §§ 99-110.

62 COLE v. PENNOYER, 14 I11. 158, Throckmorton Cas. Contracts, 131; Irvine v. Irvine, 9 Wall. 617, 19 L. Ed. 800; Zouch v. Parsons, 3 Burrows, 1794; Bigelow v. Kinney, 3 Vt. 353, 21 Am. Dec. 5S9; Dixon v. Merritt, 21 Minn. 196; Hastings v. Dollarhide, 24 Cal. 195; Logan v. Gardner, 136 Pa. 588, 20 Atl. 625, 20 Am. St. Rep. 939; French v. McAndrew, 61 Miss. 187; Henry v. Root, 33 N. Y. 526; Callis v. Day, 38 Wis. 643; Manning v. Johnson, 26 Ala. 446, 62 Am. Dec. 732. See "Infants," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 47; Cent. Dig. §§ 99-110.

63 Dunton v. Brown, 31 Mich. 182. See "Infants," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 54; Cent. Dig. §§ 130-134,.

64 Vent v. Osgood, 19 Pick. (Mass.) 572; Clark v. Goddard, 39 Ala. 164, 84

promissory notes,66 indorsement of a promissory note,88 and the like.87