Reference may be made to some of the contracts which have most frequently been held void when made by an infant.

77Sec.223.

78 Tucker v. Moreland, 10 Peters, 58, 60, 9 L. Ed. 345; United States v. Bain-bridge, 1 Mason, 71,82; West v. Penny, 16 Ala. 180, 189; Green v. Wilding, 59 Ia. 679,13 N. W. 761,44 Am. Rep. 696; Lawson v. Lovejoy, 8 Me. 405, 23 Am. Dec. 526; Robinson v. Weeks, 56 Me. 102; Fridge v. State, 3 G. & J. 103, 20 Am. Dec. 463; Levering v. Heighe, 2 Md. Ch. 81, 83, 3 ibid. 365, 368; Cro-nise v. Clark, 4 Md. Ch. 403; Oliver v. Houdlet, 13 Mass. 237, 239, 7 Am. Dec. 134; Dunton p. Brown, 31 Mich. 182.

79Bruce v. Warwick, 6 Taunt. 118; Williams v. Moor, 11 M. & W. 256; Hyer v. Hyatt, 3 Cranch C. C. 276,277; Weaver v. Jones, 24 Ala. 420; Boieman v. Browning, 31 Ark. 364, 373; Cole v. Pennoyer, 14 111. 158; Wright v. Buchanan, 287 111. 468, 123 N. E. 63; Fet. row v. Wiseman, 49 Ind. 148; Rice v. Boyer, 108 Ind. 472, 9 N. E. 420; Cam v. Gamer, 169 Ky. 633,185 S. W. 122, L. R. A. 1916 E. 682; Reed v. Batchelder, 1 Metc. 569; Mansfield v. Gordon, 144 Mass. 168, 169, 10

N. E. 773; McDonald v. Sargent, 171 Mass. 492, 51 N. E. 17; Holmes v. Rice, 45 Mich. 142,7 N. W. 772; Baker v. Kennett, 54 Mo. 82; Englebert v. Troxell, 40 Neb. 195, 58 N. W. 852, 42 Am. St. Rep. 666; Henry v. Root, 33 N. Y. 626; Continental Nat. Bank v. Strauss, 137 N. Y. 148, 162, 32 N. E. 1066; Skinner v. Maxwell, 66 N. C. 45, 47; Haraer v. Dipple, 31 Oh. St. 72, 27 Am. Rep. 496; Lemmon v. Beemsn, 45 Oh. St. 505, 609, 15 N. E. 476; Union Central Life Ins. Co. v. Hilliard, 63 Oh. St. 478,59 N. E. 230,53 L. R. A. 462, 81 Am. St. Rep. 644; Cheshire v. Barrett, 4 McCord, 241, 17 Am. Deo. 735; Cummings v. Powell, 8 Tex. 80; Mustard v. Wohlford's Heirs, 15 Gratt. 329, 76 Am. Dec. 209. But a few cases of no remote date still preserve the divisions of the early law. Green v. Wilding, 59 Ia. 679, 13 N. W. 761, 44 Am. Rep. 696; Robinson v. Weeks, 66 Me. 102; Dunton v. Brown, 31 Mich. 182; Swafford v. Ferguson, 3 Lea, 292, 31 Am. Rep. 639; and see the English authorities cited infra, Sec. 228.

Notably, it has been asserted often and decided sometimes, that an infant's power of attorney or agreement to make another his agent is void;80 and especially a power or warrant of attorney by an infant for the confession of judgment against him has been held void;81 as has any authority given by the infant to an attorney to represent him in court.82 Probably courts would still hold an infant unable to authorize a confession of judgment or to appoint an attorney for judicial proceedings; but there seems no reason except the antiquity of the rulings to that effect which can support the broad proposition that an infant's power of attorney or appointment of an agent is void; and generally, in recent cases, courts have been disposed to treat the creation of an agency by an infant, like other agreements made by him, as merely voidable.83 A ratification by an infant of an act done on his behalf but without his authority, stands logically on the same ground as an act originally authorized by an infant principal, and has been held binding.84 An infant's bill or

80Thomas v. Roberta, 10 M. & W. 778, 781; Dexter v. Hull, 15 Wall. 9, 25, 21 L. Ed. 73; Flexner v. Dickerson, 72 Ala. 318, 322; Cole v. Pennoyer, 14 111. 168; Trueblood v. Trueblood, 8 Ind. 196, 65 Am. Deo. 756; Fetrow v. Wiseman, 40 Ind. 148, 155; Burns v. Smith, 29 Ind. App. 181, 64 N. E. 94, 94 Am. St. Rep. 268; Pyle v. Cravens, 4 Litt. 17; Dana v. Coombs, 6 Me. 89, 90, 19 Am. Deo. 194; Wainwright v. Wilkinson, 62 Md. 146; Armitage v. Widoe, 36 Mich. 124, 129; Bool v. Mix, 17 Wend. 119, 31 Am. Dec. 285; Lawrence's Lessee v. McArter, 10 Oh. 38; Rocks v: Cornell, 21 R. I. 532, 45 Atl. 552.

81 Saunderaon v. Marr, 1 H. Black. 75; Wood v. Heath, 1 Chit. 708, note; Oliver v. Woodroffe, 4 M. & W. 650; Ashlin v. Langton, 4 Moore & S. 719; Waples v. Hastings, 3 Harr. 403; Car-nahan v. Allderdice, 4 Harr. 99; Bennett v. Davis, 6 Cow. 393; Knox v. Flack, 22 Fa. St. 337.

82 See infra, Sec. 248.

83 Hastings v. Dollarhide, 24Cal. 195; Hardy v. Waters, 38 Me. 450; Towle v. Dresser, 73 Me. 252; Whitney v. Dutch, 14 Mass. 457, 461, 7 Am. Dec. 229; Stiff v. Keith, 143 Mass. 224, 9 N. E. 577; Coursolle v. Weyerhauser, 69 Minn. 328, 72 N. W. 697; Aluworth v. Cordta, 31 Miss. 32; Patterson v. Lippincott, 47 N. J. L. 457,1 Atl. 606, 54 Am. Rep. 178; Cummings v. Powell, 8 Tax 80, 88; Ferguson v. Houston, etc., Ry. Co.,73 Tex. 344,347, 118. W. 347; cf. Askey v. Williams, 74 Tex. 294, 11 S. W. 1101, 5 L. R. A. 176. Cases on infant partnership, see infra, Sec.229, necessarily involve an assumption that an infant can delegate authority to act for him. Most of the cases cited above do not apply to format powers of attorney, but in Coursolle v. Weyerhauser, 69 Minn. 328, 72 N. W. 697, such a power to convey land was held voidable only.

84 Ward v. Steamboat Little Red, 8 Mo. 358; Alexander v. Heriot, Bailey's Eq. 223. The contrary suggestion in note was said to be void in some early cases.85 But it should be observed that void is often used for voidable, and at the present day there seems no doubt that the negotiable paper of an infant creates an obligation which, though voidable, may be ratified.86 An infant's contract of suretyship has been thought necessarily injurious to him, and consequently void;87 but the best recent authorities treat this like other contracts of an infant, as voidable only and therefore capable of ratification after the infant attains his majority .88 A bond with a penalty was said by Coke not to bind an infant even if given for necessaries,89 and in other early authorities it is held that a bond with penalty is void;90 and incapable of ratification.91 But there seems no reason to support a distinction between such instruments and other contracts since the penalty of a bond is unenforceable as such even against an adult; and at the present time it is not likely that the early authorities would be followed.92

An infant's submission of a dispute to arbitration was early held to be void; 93 but it seems sufficient for the infant's protection and more in accordance with principle to regard this agreement also as only voidable.94

Armitage v. Widoe, 36 Mich. 124, seems incorrect.

85 Williamson v. Watte, 1 Camp. 552; Swasey v. Vanderheyden's Adm., 10 Johns. 33; Bouchell v. Clary, 3 Brer. 194; M'Minn v. Richmonds, 6 Yerg. 9.

86Harris v. Wall, 1 Ex. 122; In re Hodson, [1984] 2 Ch. 421; Hyer v. Hyatt, 3 Crunch C. C. 276; Morton v. Steward, 5 111. App. 533; Heady v. Boden, 4 Ind. App. 475,30 N. E. 1119; Whitney v. Dutch, 14 Mass. 457, 462, 7 Am. Dec. 229; Reed v. Batchelder, 1 Met. 559; Minock v. Shortridge, 21 Mich. 304; Edgerly v. Shaw, 25 N. H. 514, 57 Am. Dec. 349; Everaon v. Carpenter, 17 Wend. 419; Union Central Life Ins. Co. v. Hilliard, 63 Oh. St. 478, 59 N. E. 230, 53 L. R. A. 462, 81 Am. St. Rep. 644; Mission Ridge Co. v. Nixon (Tenn.), 48 S. W. 405.

87 West v. Penny, 16 Ala. 186; Hastings v. Dollarhide, 24 Cal. 195; Maples v. Wightman, 4 Conn. 376; Robinson v. Weeks, 56 Me. 102; Cronise v. Clark, 4 Md. Ch. 403; Chandler v. McKinney, 6 Mich. 217, 74 Am. Dec. 686; Curtin v. Patton, 11S. & R. 305,310; Wheaton v. East, 5 Yerg. 41,61,26 Am. Dec. 251.

88 Fetrow v. Wiseman, 40 Ind. 148; Owen v. Long, 112 Mass. 403; Harrier v. Dipple, 31 Ohio St. 72, 27 Am. Rep. 496; Williams v. Harrison, 11 S. C.412; Reed v. Dane, 61 Vt. 481, 17 Atl. 796. See also Hinely v. Margarita, 3 Pa. St. 428.

89Co. Litt. 172,s.

90 Ayliff v. Archdale, Cro. Elis. 920; Delavel v. Clare, Noy, 86; Fisher v. Mowbray, 8 East, 330.

91 Baylis v. Dineley, 3 M. & S. 477.

92 An infant's bond for title with penalty was held voidable only in Weaver v. Jones, 24 Ala. 420; Mustard v. Wohlford's Heirs, 15 Gratt. 329, 76 Am. Dec. 209.

93Rudston & Yates Case, March, 111, 114.