An infant is not allowed to enforce a contract specifically, because it is said the contract lacks mutuality.94 This is often thought to mean merely that since the adult could not have enforced the contract against the infant, the infant is similarly deprived of equitable relief, but the difficulty is not simply that the adult could not have enforced the contract against the infant, but that even though the adult performed the contract, the infant might subsequently exercise his privilege to rescind the transaction. The decree of the court should not be used to deprive him of his privilege;95 and unless he is deprived of it the adult is subjected to injustice if compelled to perform. This difficulty does not arise where the infant has come of age before seeking to enforce the contract. In such a case specific performance should be granted;96 and also where the infant has irrevocably performed his side of the contract.97 v. Warner, 140 El. 123, 20 N. E. 1118; Forthman v. Deters, 206 111. 150, 60 N. E. 07, 00 Am. St. Rep. 145; Shirley v. Shirley, 7 Blackf. 452; Brown v. Ward, 110 Iowa, 123, 81 N. W. 247; Getchell v. Jewett, 4 Me. 350; Rogers v. Saunders, 16 Me. 02, 33 Am. Dec. 635; Slater v. Smith, 117 Mass. 96; Record v. Littlefield, 218 Mass. 483, 106 N. E. 142; Peevey v. Haughton, 72 Miss. 918, 17 So. 378, 18 So. 357, 48 Am. St. Rep. 502, Smith v. Wilson, 160 Mo. 657, 61 S. W. 597; Aiple-Hemmelmann Real Estate Co. v. Spelbrink, 211 Mo. 671, 111 S. W. 480; Krah v. Wassmer, 75 N. J. Eq. 100, 71 Atl. 404; Miller v. Cameron, 45 N. J. Eq. 05, 15 Atl. 842; Jasper v. Wilson, 14 N. Mex. 482, 04 Pac. 051, 23 L. R. A. (N. S.) 082; Flegel v. Dowjing, 54 Ore. 40, 102 Pac. 178, 135 Am. St. 812; Ives v. Hazard, 4 R. I. 14, 67 Am. Dec. 500; LeVine v. Whitehouse, 37 Utah, 260, 100 Pac. 2; Ann. Cas. 1012 C.

407; Central Land Co. v. Johnson, 05 Va. 223, 28 S. E. 175; Creigh'a v. Adm'r v. Boggs, 10 W. Va. 240; Armstrong v. Maryland Coal Co., 67 W. Va. 580, 60 S. E. 105.

94 Flight v. BoUand, 4 Run. 298; Solt v. Anderson, 63 Neb. 734, 80 N. W. 306. See also Ten Eyck v. Manning, 52 N. J. Eq. 47, 27 AtL 900. So where by statute written authority is required to enable a husband to bind his wife by a eon-tract made by him with a third person as her .agent, and no such authority was given, the contract will not be enforced against the third person. Wood v. Lett, 106 Ala. 601, 71 So. 177.

95 Ames's Lectures on Legal History, 372.

96 Ibid., page 374; Clayton v. Ash-down, 0 Vin. Abr. 303.

97 Asberry v. Mitchell, 121 Va. 276, 03 S. E. 638.