From what has been said it is evident that if an infant has received consideration for a transfer of money or goods by him, and still has that consideration, he cannot disaffirm his transfer without vesting a right in the other party to recover the consideration. It does not logically follow, however, that the infant must tender it back as a condition precedent of his right to disaffirm. Rather it would seem that his privilege allows him to disaffirm the whole transaction, leaving upon each party the burden of demanding and regaining what he has parted with.68 A number of decisions, however, require the infant to offer to surrender so much of the consideration, as is still in his possession, as a condition of disaffirmance.69 If the infant, having used or parted with

68Eureka Co. v. Edwards, 71 Ala. 248,46 Am. Rep. 314 (unless the suit is in equity); Sanger v. Hibbard, 104 Fed. 455, 43 G. C. A. 636; Strain v. Wright, 7 Ga. 568; Carpenter v. Carpenter, 45 Ind. 142; Clark v. Van Court, 100 Ind. 113, 60 Am. Rep. 774; Chandler v. Simmons, 97 Mass. 60S, 614, 93 Am. Dec. 117; Drude v. Curtis, 183 Man. 317, 318,67 N. E. 317, 82 L. R. A. 755; Dawson v. Helmes, 30 Minn. 107, 14 N. W. 462; Tower-Doyle Commission Co. v. Smith, 86 Mo. App. 490; Fitts v.' Hall, 9 N. H. 441; Oneonta Grocery Co. v. Preston, 167 N. Y. S. 641; Millsaps v. Estes, 137 N. C. 536, 60 S. E. 227, 70 L. R. A. 170, 107 Am. St. Rep. 476. See also St. Louis, etc., Ry. v. Higgins, 44 Ark. 293; Wright p. Buchanan, 287 111- 468,123 N. E. 53; Ross P. Curtice Co. v. Kent, 89 Neb. 496,131 N. W. 944,52 L. R. A. (N. S.) 723; Chandler v. Jones, 172 N. C. 669, 90 S. E. 580, and cases in the two following notes. But in Lamkin v.

Ledoux, 101 Me. 581, 64 Atl. 1048, 8 L. R. A. (N. S.) 104, the court not only held a repudiating infant not liable for the price of goods which he retained after attaining his majority, because the Me. Rev. St., c. 113, Sec. 2, provides that no action shall be maintained against an infant on any contract not relating to necessaries or real estate unless after reaching twenty-one years he ratifies the contract in writing, but said "The merchandise became the defendant's property upon the uncon-dition sale and delivery to him and it all remained his property though he failed or refused to pay for it."

69Re Huntenberg, 153 Fed. 768; Towle v. Dresser, 73 Me. 252; Brantley v. Wolf, 60 Miss. 420; Lake v. Perry, 95 Miss. 660, 666, 49 So. 669; Berry v. Stigall, 253 Mo. 690, 162 S. W. 126, 50L. R. A. (N. S.) 489; Zuck v. Turner Harness Co., 106 Mo. App. 566, 80 S. W. 967; Star v. Watkins, 78 Neb. 610, 111 N. W. 363; Lemmon v. Bee-man, 45 Ohio St. 505, 509, 15 N. E. 476; Price v. Furman, 27 Vt. 268, 65 Am. Dec. 194; Jones v. Valentines' School, 122 Wis. 318, 320, 99 N. W. 1043. So in Lane v. Dayton, etc., Co., 101 Tenn. 581, 48 S. W. 1094, it was held that an infant could not avoid an accord and satisfaction without first offering to return the consideration he had received, if he still had it. But see Gilkinson v. Miller, 74 Fed. 131; Gonackey v. General Accithe property while still an infant, no longer possesses it, by the weight of authority, and as a logical consequence of his incapacity, he may avoid either an executory promise,70 or an executed transfer,71 or a release of a cause of action72 dent, Fire & Life Assur. Corp., 6 Ga. App. 381, 65 S. E. 53. See also decisions in note 73, infra. In Star v. Wat-kins, 78 Neb. 610, 111 N. W. 363, it was held that the infant need not make a formal tender before the action. Readiness to surrender at the trial sufficed.

70 MacGreal v. Taylor, 167 U. S. 688, 17 Sup. Gt. 961, 42 L. Ed. 326; White v. Sikes, 120 Ga. 508, 59 S. E. 228; Brandon v. Brown, 106 111. 519, 527; First Nat. Bank v. Casey, 158 Ia. 349, 138 N. W. 897; Badger v. Phinney, 15 Mass. 359, 8 Am. Dec. 105; Miller v. Smith, 26 Minn. 248, 2 N. W. 942, 37 Am. Rep. 407; Nichols, etc., Co. v. Snyder, 78 Minn. 502, 81 N. W. 516; Brantley v. Wolf, 60 Miss. 420; Kitchen v. Lee, 11 Paige, 107,42, Am. Dec. 101; Mustard v. Wohlford's Heirs, 15 Gratt. 329, 76 Am. Dec. 209; Bedinger v. Wharton, 27 Gratt. 857; International Text-Book Co. v. McKone, 133 Wis. 200,133 N. W. 438.

71 Tucker v. Moreland, 10 Pet. 58, 73, 74, 9 L. Ed. 345; MacGreal v. Taylor, 167 U. S. 688, 17 Sup. Ct. 961, 42 L. Ed. 326; Alfrey v. Colbert, 168 Fed. 231, 93 C. C. A. 517; Manning v. Johnson, 26 Ala, 446, 62 Am. Dec. 732; Eureka Co. v. Edwards, 71 Ala, 248,46 Am. Rep. 314; American Mortgage Co. v. Dykes, HI Ala. 178, 18 So. 292, 56 Am. St. Rep. 38; Ex parte McFerren, 184 Ala. 223, 63 So. 159, 47 L. R. A. (N. S.) 543; Beauchamp v. Bertig, 90 Ark. 351, 119 S. W. 75, SO, 23 L. R, A. (N. S.) 659; Flittner v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc, 30 Cal. App. 209, 157 Pac. 630; Putnal v. Walker, 61 Fla. 720, 55 So. 844, 36 L. R. A. (N. S.) 33; Southern Cotton Oil Co. v. Dukes, 121 Ga. 787, 49 S. E. 788; Carpenter v. Carpenter, 45 Ind.

142; Dill v. Bowen, 54 Ind. 204; Beick-ler v. Guenther, 121 Iowa, 419, 96 N. W. 895; Gray V, Grimm, 157 Ky. 603, 163 S. W. 762; Chandler v. Simmons, 97 Mass. 508, 93 Am. Dec. 117; Morse v. Ely, 154 Mass. 453, 28 N. E. 577, 26 Am. St. Rep. 263; White v. New Bedford, etc., Co., 178 Mass. 20, 59 N. E. 642; Gillis v. Goodwin, 180 Mass. 140, 61 N. E. 813, 91 Am. St. Rep. 265; Simpson v. Prudential Ins. Co., 184 Mass. 348, 68 N. E. 673, 63 L. R, A. 741, 100 Am. St. Rep. 560; Brantley v. Wolf, 60 Miss. 420; Harvey v. Briggs, 68 Miss. 60, 8 So. 274, 10 L. R. A. 62; Lake v. Perry, 95 Misa. 550, 566, 49 So. 569; Craig v. VanBeb-ber, 100 Mo. 584, 13 S. W. 906, 18 Am. St. Rep. 569; Ridgeway v. Herbert, 150 Mo. 606, 51 S. W. 1040, 73 Am. St. Rep. 464; Clark v. Tate, 7 Mont. 171, 14 Pac. 761; Bloomer v. Nolan, 36 Neb. 51, 53 N. W. 1039, 38 Am. St. Rep. 690; Englebert v. Trbx-ell, 40 Neb. 195, 58 N. W. 852, 26 L. R. A. 177, 42 Am. St. Rep. 665; Green v. Green, 69 N. Y. 553, 25 Am. Rep. 233; Cresinger v. Welsh's Lessee, 15 Ohio, 156, 45 Am. Dec. 565; Lcm-mon v. Beeman, 45 Ohio St. 505, 15 N. E. 476; Bullock v. Sprowls, 93 Tex. 188, 54 S. W. 661, 47 L. R. A. 326, 77 Am. St. Rep. 849; Price p. Funnan, 27 Vt. 268, 65 Am. Dec. 194; Wiser v. Lockwood, 42 Vt. 720.