Same - What Amounts To Disaffirmance

108. A contract is disaffirmed by any conduct which is inconsistent with the existence of the contract, and shows an intention not to be bound by it.

Disaffirmance, like ratification, may be implied, and it will generally be implied from conduct clearly inconsistent with the existence of the contract.54 Where, for instance, a person who has sold and conveyed or mortgaged land or goods while an infant, sells, leases, or mortgages the same to another after becoming of age, this is a disaffirmance of his contract.66 An action by a person, after becoming of age, to recover goods or land sold by him during his minority, is a disaffirmance of the sale;56 and a contract is disaffirmed by merely pleading infancy when suit is brought against him to enforce it.

52 Durfee v. Abbott, 61 Mich. 471, 68 N. W. 521; Irvine v. Irvine, 9 Wall. 618, 19 L. Ed. 800; Tyler v. Fleming, 68 Mich. 185, 35 N. W. 902, 13 Am. St. Rep. 336; Hill v. Nelms, 86 Ala. 442, 5 South. 796. But see Delano v. Blake. 11 Wend. (N. Y.) 85, 25 Am. Dec. 617; ante, p. 206. See "Infants," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 57; Cent. Dig. §§ 186-148.

53Langdon v. Clayson, 75 Mich. 204, 42 N. W. 805; Lacy v. Pixler, 120 Mo. 383, 25 S. W. 206; Dolph v. Hand, 156 Pa. 91, 27 Atl. 114, 36 Am. St. Rep. 25; Wheaton v. East, 5 Yerg. (Tenn.) 41, 62, 26 Am. Dec. 258; Hart-man v. Kendall, 4 Ind. 403; Wallace's Lessee v. Lewis, 4 Har. (Del.) 80. See "Infants," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 57; Cent. Dig. §§ 136-148.

54 Pyne v. Wood, 145 Mass. 558, 14 N. E. 775; Vent v. Osgood, 19 Pick. (Mass.) 572; Whitmarsh v. Hall, 3 Denio (N. Y.) 375; Dallas v. Hollingsworth, 3 Ind. 537. See "Infants," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) §§ 81, 58; Cent. Dig. §§ 41-63, 149-160.

55 Tucker v. Moreland, 10 Pet 58, 9 L. Ed. 345; Mustard v. Wohlford's Heirs, 15 Grat. (Va.) 329, 76 Am. Dec. 209; Vallandingham v. Johnson, 85 Ky. 288, 3 S. W. 173; Corbett v. Spencer, 63 Mich. 731, 30 N. W. 385; Haynes v. Bennett, 53 Mich. 15, 18 N. W. 539; Dawson v. Helmes, 30 Minn. 107, 14 N. W. 462; Chapin v. Shafer, 49 N. Y. 407; Peterson v. Laik, 24 Mo. 541, GO Am. Dec. 441; Cresinger v. Welch's Lessee, 15 Ohio, 156, 45 Am. Dec. 565; Pitcher v. Layrock, 7 Ind. 398; McGan v. Marshall, 7 Humph. (Tenn.) 121; Ridgeway v. Herbert, 150 Mo. 606, 51 S. W. 1040, 73 Am. St. Rep. 464. In some jurisdictions a person is not allowed to convey land which is in the adverse possession of another. Here, therefore, an infant cannot avoid his deed of land by a second deed, executed while his first grantee or another is in the adverse possession of the land. He must first make an entry. Harrison v. Adcock, 8 Ga. 68. See Bool v. Mix, 17 Wend. (N. Y.) 133, 31 Am. Dee. 2S5. See "Infants," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) §§ 81, 58; Cent. Dig. §§ 41-63, 149-160.

At one time disaffirmance of a deed of land was required to be by some act as high and solemn as the deed; but, according to the weight of authority, this solemnity is no longer necessary, and a deed may be effectually avoided by any acts or declarations disclosing an unequivocal intent to repudiate it.57