The Common Law rule as to the effect and validity of an infant's contracts was that if the court could, as a matter of law, determine that the contract was prejudicial to the infant, it was void; if beneficial, as for necessaries, it was valid; and if it was doubtful whether it was beneficial or prejudicial it was voidable.1 Thus a contract clearly beneficial to the infant was held binding.2 An apparent modification of this rule, though not always recognized as such by the courts, restricts void contracts to such as are clearly, certainly or necessarily to the prejudice of the infant.3 In Robinson v. Weeks,4 a somewhat different classification from that given in the text was set forth at length and the contracts of infants were divided into three classes: binding, if for necessaries at fair and just rates; void, if manifestly and necessarily prejudicial, as of suretyship, gift, naked release, appointment of agents, confession of judgment or the like; and voidable, at the election of the minor, either during his minority or within a reasonable time after he becomes of age; including all the agreements of a minor which may be beneficial and are not for necessaries until fully executed on both sides, and all executed contracts of this sort where the other party can be placed substantially in statu quo. An examination of the authorities cited will show that this rule was based on a line of dicta; and that the real decisions in almost all of the cases did not require the statement of the rule in the form given. The questions decided are generally presented where the infant has taken steps sufficient to avoid the contract, and it has thereby become unimportant whether the contract was originally void or merely voidable. Wherever questions of the possibility of ratification by the infant or the right of the adult to avoid have been raised the conclusion reached is consistent only with the view that the contract called "void" is really voidable.

2 Knight v. Colman, 117 Ala. 266; 22 So. 974; Daley v. Minnesota, etc., Co., 43 Minn. 517; 45 N. W. 1100; Ward v. Laverty, 19 Neb. 429; 27 N. W. 393; Chubb v. Johnson, 11 Tex. 469.

3 Ward v. Laverty, 19 Neb. 429; 27 N. W. 393.

4 Knight v. Colman, 117 Ala. 266; 22 So. 974.

5 Confederation, etc., Association v. Kinnear, 23 Ont. App. 497; Har-rod v. Myers, 21 Ark. 592; 76 Am. Dec. 409; Watson v. Billings, 38 Ark. 278; 42 Am. Rep. 1; Magee v. Welsh. 18 Cal. 155; Law v. Long, 41 Ind. 586; Losey v. Bond, 94 Ind. 67; Hoyt v. Swar, 53 111. 134; Phillips v. Green, 3 A. K. Marsh. (Ky.) 7: 13 Am. Dec. 124; Prewit v. Craves, 5 J. J. Marsh. 114; Cummings v. Everett 82 Me. 260; 19 Atl. 456; Webb v. Hall, 35 Me. 336; Walsh v. Young, 110 Mass. 396; Craig v. Van Bebber, 100 Mo. 584; 18 Am. St. Rep. 569; 13 S. W. 906; Sanford v. McLean, 3 Paige (N. Y.) 117; 23 Am. Dec. 773; Bool v. Mix, 17 Wend. (N. Y.) 119; 31 Am. Dec. 285; Epps. v. Flowers, 101 N. C. 158; 7 S. E. 680; Hughes v. Watson, 10 Ohio 127; McMorris v. Webb, 17 S. C. 558; 43 Am. Rep. 629; Bradshaw v. Van Valkenburg, 97 Tenn. 316; 37 S. W. 88; Walton v. Gaines, 94 Tenn. 420; 29 S. W. 458.

6Syllabus of Bool v. Mix, 17 Wend. (N. Y.) 119; 31 Am. Dec. 285; quoted in Hughes v. Watson, 10 Ohio 127, 134.

7Sewell v. Sewell, 92 Ky. 500; 36 Am. St. Rep. 606; 18 S. W. 162.

1 Harvey v. Ashley, 3 Atk. 607; Zouch v. Parsons, 3 Burr. 1794; Keane v. Boycott, 2 H. Black. 512; Baylis v. Dinely, 3 Maule & S. 477; Tucker v. Moreland, 10 Pet. 58; Waugh v. Emerson, 79 Ala. 295; Green v. Wilding, 59 la. 679; 44 Am. Rep. 696; 13 N. W. 761; Succession of Wilder, 22 La. Ann. 219; 2 Am. Rep. 721; Lawson v. Love-joy, 8 Me. 405; 23 Am. Dec. 526; Williams v. Hutchinson, 3 N. Y. 312; 53 Am. Dec. 301; Wheaton v. East, 5 Yerg. (Tenn.) 41; 26 Am.

Dec. 251. Of these cases Keane v. Boycott, 2 H. Bla. 511. while not the earliest is perhaps the one most often quoted.

2 Waugh v. Emerson, 79 Ala. 295; Nickerson v. Eastom, 12 Pick. (Mass.) 110; Stone v. Dennison, 13 Pick. (Mass.) 1; 23 Am. Dec. 654; Breed v. Judd, 1 Gray (Mass.) 455.

3 Hastings v. Dollarhide. 24 Cal. 195; Bradford v. French, 110 Mass. 365; Oliver v. Houdlet, 13 Mass, 237: 7 Am. Dec. 134.

4 56 Me. 102.