The rule given in the preceding section that powers of attorney are held void in many jurisdictions has been applied in some jurisdictions to all appointments of agents.1 Such an appointment is said to be "absolutely void."2 While in some of these cases, this rule is obiter, in others it is specifically decided. Thus it has been held that the infant could not ratify the contract made by the agent, on reaching majority;3 and also, that no title passed by a sale made by the agent for the infant,4 or by an assignment of a note.5 It was also said that an infant cannot adopt the act of an agent.6 The clear weight of modern authority, however, seems to be that an appointment of an agent is voidable only, and not void.7 Thus an appointment of an

6 Fetrow v. Wiseman, 40 Ind. 148; Hustand v. Kuns, 8 Blackf. (Ind.) 345; 46 Am. Dec. 481; Mustard v. Wohlford's Heirs, 15 Grattan (Va.) 329; 76 Am. Dec. 209.

7 Turner v. Bondalier, 31 Mo. App. 582.

8 Karcher v. Green, 8 Houst. (Del.) 163; 32 Atl. 225. In this case a judgment on power of attorney signed by a minor was set aside.

1 Cole v. Pennoyer, 14 111. 158; Trueblood v. Trueblood, 8 Ind. 195; 65 Am. Dec. 756; Semple V. Morrison, 7 T. B. Mon. (Ky.) 298; Armi-tage v. Widoe, 36 Mich. 124; Bool v. Mix, 17 Wend. (N. Y.) 119; 31 Am. Dec. 285; Fonda v. Van Home, 15 Wend. (N. Y.) 631; 30 Am. Dec. 77; Burns v. Smith, 29 Ind. App. 181; 94 Am. St. Rep. 268; 64 N. E. 94; Poston v. Williams, 99 Mo. App. 513; 73 S. W. 1099.

2 Burns v. Smith, 29 Ind. App.

181; 94 Am. St. Rep. 268; 64 N. E. 94.

3 Doe v. Roberts, 16 Mee. & W. 777; Trueblood v. Trueblood, 8 Ind. 195; 65 Am. Dec. 756.

4 Fonda v. Van Horne, 15 Wend. (N. Y.) 631; 30 Am. Dec. 77.

5 Semple v. Morrison, 7 T. B. Mon. (Ky.) 298.

6 Armitage v. Widoe, 36 Mich. 124. Contra, Ward v. Steamboat Little Red, 8 Mo. 358.

7 Hastings v. Dollarhide, 24 Cal. 195; Hardy v. Waters, 38 Me. 450; Whitney v. Dutch, 14 Mass. 457; 7 Am. Dec. 229; Welch v. Welch, 103 Mass. 562; Simpson v. Ins. Co., 184 Mass. 348; 68 N. E. 673; Stiff v. Keith, 143 Mass. 224; 9 N. E. 577; Patterson v. Lippincott, 47 N. J. L. 457; 54 Am. Rep. 178; 1 Atl. 506; Cummings v. Powell, 8 Tex. 80; Voglesang v. Null, 67 Tex. 465; 3 S. W. 451; Ferguson v. Ry. Co., 73 agent, by an infant, to execute a promissory note,8 or to indorse one,0 even if non-negotiable,10 or to rescind a contract,11 is merely voidable. The agent cannot be sued on an implied breach of warranty of authority;12 nor can the adversary party avoid a contract made through an agent with an undisclosed principal who proves to be a minor.13 Hence also an infant can bind himself for necessaries by an agent.14