An infant cannot disaffirm so much of a transaction as is unfavorable to him and treat the remainder as effectual. If he disaffirms his obligation to pay an agreed price, he thereby necessarily disaffirms his title to the consideration he received for that obligation.58 If he disaffirms his obligation to pay for goods delivered to him upon a conditional sale, he thereby forfeits any title and right to the possession of the goods which the bargain gave to bim.59 Similarly if he purchases property and mortgages it back for the price, an avoidance of the mortgage avoids his title to the property,60 and if he sells property so mortgaged, the purchaser necessarily takes it subject to the mortgage.61 If he enters into any contract subject to conditions or stipulations, he cannot take the benefit of the contract without the burden of the conditions or stipulations.62 An infant no more than an adult can recover the value of services voluntarily rendered by him as a gratuity .63 He might, however, it seems, reclaim a gift of tangible property which was still in existence, and if return was refused, recover its value.

140, 61 N. E. 813, 91 Am. St. Rep. 265; Simpson v. Prudential Ins. Co., 184 Mats. 348, 68 N. E. 673, 63 L. R. A. 741, 100 Am. St. Rep. 560; Pippen v. Mutual Benefit Life Ins. Co., 130 N. C. 23, 40 S. E. 822, 57 L. R. A. 505; Co-vault v. Nevitt, 157 Wis. 113, 146 N. W. 1115, 51 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1092. In Michigan the exceptional doctrine prevails that an infant cannot avoid any of his contracts while still an infant Dunton v. Brown, 31 Mich. 1S2; Armitage v. Widoe, 36 Mich. 124; Lansing v. Michigan Central R. Co., 126 Mich. 663, 86 N. W. 147, 86 Am. St. Rep. 567. But an infant purchaser was allowed while still an infant to rescind his contract on account of fraud in Stoll v. Hawks, 179 Mich. 571, 146 N. W. 229, 51 R. A. (N. S.) 28.

56 Wooldridge v. Lavoie (N. H.), 104 Atl. 346.

57 Chandler v. Simmons, 97 Mass. 508, 510, 93 Am. Dec. 117. And see infra, Sec.234.

58Strain v. Wright, 7 Ga. 568; Thomason v. Phillips, 73 Ga. 140; Carpenter v. Carpenter, 45 Ind. 142; Shirk v. Shultz, 113 Ind. 571, 15 N. E. 12; Badger v. Phinney, 15 Mass. 359,

8 Am. Dec. 105; Fitts v. Hall, 9 N. H. 441; Heath v. West, 28 N. H. 101; Skinner v. Maxwell, 66 N. C. 45; Wallace v. Leroy, 67 W. Va. 263, 267, 50 S. E. 243, 110 Am. St. Rep. 777. In Evans v. Morgan, 69 Miss. 328, 12 So. 270, an infant engaged in trade became indebted for merchandise and when sued for the price avoided liability by pleading infancy. Thereafter he made a fraudulent sale of his prop, erty including the merchandise in question to his father. The sellers of the merchandise were allowed in & suit to equity to reclaim the property and being unable to identify it, because mingled with other property to subject the whole to a lien for its value. So in Betts v Carroll, 6 Mo. App. 518, creditors of the seller were allowed to attach property in the infant's hands after disaffirmance. In Drude v. Curtis, 183 Mass. 317, 67 N. E. 317, 62 L. R. A. 755, both parties were infants. The buyer who had paid a portion of the price sued to recover it and attached the goods which had been the subject of the sale. It was held that the defendant's privilege excused him from liability either in tort or contract.