150 Mo. 606, 51 S. W. 1040, 73 Am. St. Rep. 464; MacGreal v. Taylor, 167 U. S. OSS, 17 Sup. Ct 961, 42 L. Ed. 326; Bullock v. Sprowls, 93 Tex. 188. 54 S. W. 661, 47 L. R. A. 326. 77 Am. St Rep. 849; White v. Cotton Waste Corp., 17S Mass. 20, 59 N. E. 642; Gillis v. Goodwin, 180 Mass. 140, 61 N. E. 813, 91 Am. St. Rep. 265; Shipley v. Smith, 162 Ind. 526, 70 N. E. 803; Lake v. Perry, 05 Miss. 550, 49 South. 569. See "Infants," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) §§ 31, 58; Cent. Dig. §§ 59, 157.

70 International Text-Book Co. v. Doran, 80 Conn. 307, 68 Atl. 255. See "Infants;' Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) §§ 31, 58; Cent. Dig. §§ 59, 157.

71 Simpson v. Prudential Ins. Co., 184 Mass. 348, 68 N. E. 673, 63 L. R. A. 741, 100 Am. St Rep. 560. See "Infants," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) §§ 31, 58; Cent. Dig. §§ 59, 157.

72 Simpson v. Prudential Ins. Co., supra; Englebert v. Troxell, 40 Neb. 105. 58 N. W. 852, 26 L. R. A. 177, and note, 42 Am. St. Rep. 665. See "Infants," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) §§ 31, 58; Cent. Dig. §§ 59, 157.

73A minor who contracts with his employer that the price of articles, not necessaries, purchased by him from his employer, shall be deducted from his wages, may, on becoming of age, repudiate his contract, and recover his wages without deduction; and this, even though he may have disposed of the articles to his benefit. Morse v. Ely, 154 Mass. 458, 28 N. E. 577, 26 Am. St Rep. 263. And see Genereux v. Sibley, 18 R. I. 43, 25 Atl. 345. See "Infants," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) §§ 31, 58; Cent. Dig. §§ 59, 157.

So it has been held that the executed contract of an infant for the performance of personal services by him may not be disaffirmed if not so unreasonable as to be evidence of fraud or undue advantage in its procurement.75 This exception to the general rule, is made for the benefit and protection of the infant. As said in a Michigan case:76 "Should the law recognize the right of repudiation in such cases, no man could furnish an infant with the necessaries of life in compensation for his services with-out the risk of a lawsuit; and the minor, though able and willing to earn his support, would often be deprived of the opportunity, and driven perhaps to vagrancy and crime."

And in some states the right of an infant to disaffirm a contract made by him when over a certain age is, by statute, made dependent upon his restoring the consideration or paying its equivalent, with interest.77

74 Adams v. Beall. 67 Md. 53, 8 Atl. 664, 1 Am. St Rep. 379; Wilhelm v. Hardman, 13 Md. 140; Holden v. Pike, 14 Vt 405, 39 Am. Dec. 228; Womack v. Womack, 8 Tex. 397, 417, 58 Am. Dec. 119; Bailey v. Bamberger, 11 B. Mon. (Ky.) 113. The right to avoid is conditional on his restoring what he received in specie, or, if he cannot, on his accounting for its value. Heath v. Stevens, 48 N. H. 251; Hall v. Butterfield, 59 N. H. 354, 47 Am. Rep. 209; Bartlett v. Bailey, 59 N. H. 408; Riley v. Mallory, 33 Conn. 201. In England the right to avoid an executed sale and recover back the price is denied. Holmes v. Blogg, 8 Taunt. 508; Ex parte Taylor, 8 De G. M. & G. 258. See, also, Williams v. Pasquali, Peake, Add. Cas. 197; Valentini v. Canali, 24 Q. B. D. 166. Where the personal contract of an infant is fair and reasonable, and free from fraud or undue influence, and has been wholly or partly performed on both sides, so that the infant has enioyed the benefits of it, but has parted with what he has received, or the benefits are of such a nature that he cannot restore them, he cannot recover back what he has paid. Johnson v. Insurance Co., 56 Minn. 365, 57 N. W. 934, 59 N. W. 992, 26 L. R. A. 187, 45 Am. St. Rep. 473; Alt v. Graff, 65 Minn. 191, 68 N. W. 9. See, also. Rice v. Butler, 160 N. Y. 578, 55 N. E. 275, 47 L. R. A. 303, 73 Am. St. Rep. 703. Cf. Gilli's v. Goodwin, 180 Mass. 140, 61 N. E. 813, 91 Am. St. Rep. 265. See "Infants," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) §§ 31, 58; Cent. Dig. §§ 59, 151.

75 Squier v. Hydliff, 9 Mich. 274; Spieer v. Earl, 41 Mich. 191, 1 N. W. 923. 32 Am. Rep. 152; Robinson v. Van Vleet, 91 Ark. 262, 121 S. W. 2S8; Pins Min. & Mill. Co. v. Grant, 68 Kan. 732, 75 Pac. 1044. See "Infants," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 49; Cent. Dig. §§ 112, 113, 159.

76 Squier v. Hydliff, supra, per Christiancy, J. See "Infants," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 1,9; Cent. Dig. §§ 112,113, 159.

77 Age 18. Spencer v. Collins, 156 Cal. 298, 104 Pac. 320, 20 Ann. Cas. 49; Luce v. Jestrab, 12 N. D. 548, 97 N. W. 848; Holland v. Colton State Bank, 20 S. D. 325, 106 N. W. 60, holding, however, that a contract of suretyship may be avoided by mere disaffirmance, since the infant can derive no advantage from it. See "Infants," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) §§ 31, 58; Cent. Dig. §§ 5.9, 157.