Under ordinary circumstances the purchase of a house is not necessary,25 nor work and materials for the building of a house,26 nor fire insurance,27 nor life insurance.28 Clothing

"course in stenography costing $35 was necessiary for a girl of seventeen years" would depend entirely upon that particular infant's condition in life which her previous education and attainments had prepared or fitted her to occupy.

19Middlebury College p. Chandler, 16 Vt. 683, 42 Am. Dec. 537; Gayle v. Hayes' Adm., 79 Va. 542.

20 Turner p. Gaither, 83 N. C. 367, 36 Am. Rep. 574; Bouchell v. Clary, 3 Brer. 194.

21International Text Book Co. v. Connelly, 206 N. Y. 188, 99 N. E. 722, 42 L. R. A. (N. S.) 11115. In this case the infant was under the care of a guardian able and willing to supply him with support and training suitable to his condition.

22 Peters v. Fleming, 6 M. A W. 42; Mauldin p. Southern Shorthand University, 126 Ga. 681, 55 S. E. 922.

23MoKanna v. Merry, 61 111. 177; Garr v. Haskett, 86 Ind. 373; Merriam v. Cunningham, 11 Cush. 40; Lynch v. Johnson, 109 Mioh. 640, 67 N. W. 908; Deoell v. Lewenthal, 57 Miss. 331, 34 Am. Rep. 449; Glover p. Ott, 1 Mo-Cord, 572.

24 Maddox v. Miller, 1 M. A 8. 738; Peters v. Fleming, 6 M. & W. 42; Mauldin v. Southern Shorthand University, 126 Ga. 681, 86 S. E. 922; Merriam v. Cunningham, 11 Cush. 40; Lynch v. Johnson, 109 Mich. 640, 67 N. W. 908; Decell v. Lewenthal, 57 Miss. 331, 34 Am. Rep. 449; Cobbey v. Buchanan, 48 Neb. 391, 67 N. W. 176.

26 This is dear from the fact that repairs on a house belonging to an infant, though essential to the preservation of the property, have been held not necessary. Tupper v. Cadwell, 12 Mete. 559, 46 Am. Deo. 704; Walks v. Bardwell, 126 Mass. 366; West v. Gregg's Adm., 1 Grant, 63. And see the following note.

26Price v. Sanders, 60 Ind. 310, 314; Price v. Jennings, 62 Ind. 11; Womack v. Loar, 11 Ky. L. Rep. 6, 11 S. W. 438; Horstmeyer v. Connors, 66 Mo. App. 116; Allen v. Lardner, 78 Hun, 603; Freeman v. Bridger, 4 Jones L. 1; Phillips p. Lloyd, 18 R. I. 99, 25 Atl. 909.

27New Hampshire Fire Ins. Co. v. Noyes, 32 N. H. 345.

28Simpson p. Prudential Ids'. Co., of unusual elegance is clearly not essential;29 nor is jewelry,30 but exceptional clothing may be treated as necessary on the marriage of an infant.31 Such food as confectionery and fruit,32 liquors 33 and tobacco 34 obviously are not necessaries, nor is a horse,35 a carriage,36 a bicycle,37 or, ordinarily, traveling expenses.38

"The law does not contemplate that a minor shall open a shop and become a trader, or the proprietor of a business which involves the making of a variety of contracts." Therefore, articles essential for the conduct of a business in which the infant is engaged are not necessaries,39 but the judge from whom the preceding words are quoted adds, "If they had been hand tools to a reasonable amount, such as are ordinarily provided by a journeyman, and necessary for use in his trade or business, the case would be different." 40

184 Mass. 348,68 N. E. 673,63 L. R. A. 741, 100 Am. St. Rep. 560.

29Makarell v. Bachelor, Cro. Eliz. 583; Lefts v. Sugg, 15 Ark. 137; Gayle v. Hayes' Adm., 70 Va. 542, 647.

30Ryder v. Wombwell, L. R. Ex. 32.

31Garr v. Haskett, 86 Ind. 373; Sams v. Stockton, 14 B. Mon. 232; Jordan v. Coffield, 70 N. C. 110, 113.

32 Brooker v. Scott, 11 M. A W. 67. Compare Wharton v. Mackenzie, 5 Q. B. 606.

35 Glover v. Ott, 1 McCord, 572.

36 Bryant v. Richardson, L. R. 3 Ex. 93, note.

35Beeler v. Young, 1 Bibb, 519; Gayle v. Hayes' Adm., 79 Va. 642, 547; Skrine v. Gordon, 9 Ir. Rep. C. L. 479. Compare cases cited in the preceding

36Howard v. Simpkins, 70 Ga. 322; Heffington v. Jackson, 43 Tex. Civ. App. 560, 96 S. W. 108.

37 Pyne v. Wood, 146 Mass. 558, 14 N. E. 775; Gillis v. Goodwin, 180 Mass. 140, 61 N. E. 813, 91 Am. St. Rep. 265; Rice v. Butler, 100 N. Y. 578, 55 N. E. 275, 47 L. R. A. 303, 73 Am. St. Rep. 703. Otherwise in England. Clyde Cycle Co. v. Hargreaves, 78 L. T. 296.

38McKanna v. Merry, 61 111. 177. See Breed v. Judd, 1 Gray, 466, 458.

39Ryan v. Smith, 165 Mam. 303, 43 N. E. 109. To the same effect see Whittingham v. Hill, Cro. Jac. 494; Dilk v. Keighley, 2 Esp. 480; Sanger v. Hibbard, 104 Fed. 455, 43 C. C. A. 635; Lein v. Centaur Motor Co., 194 111. App. 609; House v. Alexander, 106 Ind. 109, 4 N. E. 891, 55 Am. Rep. 189; Decell v. Lewenthal, 57 Miss. 331, 34 Am. Rep. 449; Rainwater v. Durham, 2 Mott & McC. 524, 10 Am. Dec. 637; Chabot v. Paulhus, 32 R. I. 471, 79 Atl. 1103; Wallace v. Leroy, 57 W. Va. 263,110 Am. St. Rep. 777, 50 S. E. 243. See also Covault v. Nevitt, 157 Wis. 113, 146 N. W. 1115, 51 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1092. But otherwise under the statutes of some States, Ullmer v. Fitsgerald, 106 Ga. 815, 32 S. E. 869; Jimmerson v. Lawrence, 112 Ga. 340, 37 S. E. 371; fie Brice, 93 Fed. Rep. 942 (Iowa). And see Hall v. Butterfield, 59 N. H. 354, 47 Am. Rep. 209.

40 Ryan v. Smith, 166 Mass. 303, 43 N. E. 109.

There has been considerable litigation upon the question whether a contract by an infant for legal services is a contract for necessaries. It has generally been held that such services rendered in protection of ordinary rights of property are not necessaries.41 as a guardian should be appointed to take charge of such matters. But payment for legal services rendered for an infant's personal relief or protection is recoverable; as for defending him against a charge of crime,42 or for bringing an action for a tort to the person,43 or for obtaining his discharge from imprisonment.44 And where an attorney is employed by a guardian or guardian ad litem to protect the infant's property his "estate may be made liable for a reasonable attorney's fee, if the services rendered were for the manifest benefit of the infant, and necessary for the protection of valuable rights belonging to him." 45