The right to avoid his contracts and conveyances is given an infant for his protection, and should not be stretched beyond what his needs require. Therefore, the right is confined to the infant himself or his legal representatives.26 Creditors27 trustees or assignees in bankruptcy,28 assignees by purchase,29
22a"See infra, Sec.275.
23Irvine v. Irvine, 9 Wall. 617, 19 L. Ed. 800; Damron v. Radiff, 123 Ky. 758, 97 S. W. 401; Kinard v. Proctor, 68 S. C. 279,47 S. E. 390; Darrough v. Blackford, 84 Va. 509, 5 S, E. 542.
Though the foregoing decisions relate to conveyances not to executory covenants, it is a fair inference from them that parol ratification of an executory covenant would be effectual. See also Ashfiekt v. Asbfield, W. Jones, 157.
24 See supra, Sec. 105.
25 Chitty, Pleading (16th Am. Ed. 406.
26 Trustees v. Anderson, 63 Ind. 367; Holmes v. Rice, 45 Mich. 142, 7 N. W. 772; Monaghan v. Agricultural Ins, Co., 53 Mich. 238, 18 N. W. 797; Harvey v. Briggs, 68 Miss. 60, 8 So. 274, 10 L. R. A. 62; Shaffer v. Detie, 191 Mo. 377, 90S. W. 131; Bordentown v. Wallace, 50 N. J. L. 13, 11 Atl. 267; Beardsley v. Hotchkiss, 96 N. Y. 201, and cases cited in the following notes.
27 Kingman v. Perkins, 105 Mass. 111; Yates v. Lyon, 61 N. Y. 344.
28 Mansfield v. Gordon, 144 Mass. 168, 10 N. E. 773; Sayles v. Christie, 187 111. 420, 438, 58 N. E. 480.
29Riley v. Dillon, 148 Ala. 283, 41 So. 768.
sureties,30 or persons collaterally interested in the existence of the contract or conveyance,31 are not included in this designation; but heirs,32 or executors or administrators 32a are, and probably guardians also.33 It was said in an early book 34 that the deed of an infant is voidable not only by himself or his heirs, but "by those who have his estate " but at the present day it is clear that mere privity of estate will not suffice for an avoidance of an infant's act.35 The other party to a contract cannot avoid it on the ground that the infant's promise or conveyance is voidable;36 but after an infant has exercised his right of avoidance, any one may thereafter assert the nullity of the transaction,37