As between himself and his co-partners, an infant's contract of partnership is, like all his other contracts, voidable. He may disaffirm the contract without being liable for damages,11 and such disaffirmance may be made during infancy.12 The adult partner on the other hand cannot withdraw, and while the partnership continues the infant partner has the same powers and rights as any partner.13 So far as his own personal liability is concerned, an infant may also avoid partnership obligations to creditors and other persons who have contracted with the firm; 14 but the capital actually contributed to the firm business by the infant partner is so far dedicated to the business of the partnership that it cannot be withdrawn until the claims of firm creditors are satisfied;15 and holding the infant liable on his contract while nominally permitting him to rescind it.
8 See infra, Sec. 238.
9See infra, Sec.240.
10 Stettheimer v. Wood, Harmon Ac. Co., 167 N. Y. 8.1059.
11 Goode v. Harrison, 5 Bam. & Ald. 147; Conldin v. Ogbom, 7 Ind. 663; Adams v. Beall, 67 Md. 63, 8 Atl. 664, 1 Am. St. Rep. 379; Latrobe v. Dietrich, 114 Md. 8, 78 Atl. 983; Dunton v. Brown, 31 Mich. 182; Osbura v. Farr, 42 Mich. 134, 3 N. W. 299; Betts v. Carroll, 6 Mo. App. 518; Penn v. Whitehead, 17 Gratt. 603, 94 Am. Dm. 478.
12 Adams v. Beall, 67 Md. 53, 8 Atl. 664, 1 Am. St. Rep. 379. The decision of Dunton v. Brown, 31 Mich. 182, is to the contrary, but cannot be sup-
13 Latrobe v. Dietrich, 114 Md. 8, 78 Atl. 983.
14 First Nat. Bank v. Casey, 158 Ia. 349, 138 N. W. 897; Mason v. Wright, 13 Mete. 306; Folds v. Allardt, 36 Minn. 488,29 N. W. 201; Kerr v. Bell, 44 Mo. 120.
15 Shirk v. Shultz, 113 Ind. 571, 16 N. E. 12; Bush v. Linthicum, 59 Md. 344; Yates v. Lyon, 61 N. Y. 344.
a fortiori if a firm transaction has been executed by the payment of firm money the infant cannot reclaim the money or any part of it.16 Even against his co-partners the infant cannot claim that partnership liabilities shall be satisfied from their share of the firm capital, leaving his intact.17 These limitations on the privilege of an infant partner can only be explained on the theory that the contract of partnership creates a status, so far as the capital actually embarked in the business is concerned, from which the infant cannot escape.
In England it was enacted in 1874 18 that all contracts of infants for the repayment of money lent or for goods supplied other than necessaries, and all accounts stated with infants should be absolutely void. A few of the United States have passed statutes upon the subject, but generally the liability of the parties is that which is fixed by the common law.