An infant's executory contract to convey realty,1 or to purchase it;2 a lease by him,3 or to him;4 and his deed passing realty,5 are all voidable. His right to avoid is not affected by the fact that adult grantors joined with him as being co-owners,6 or by the fact that the property sold has passed into the hands of a bona fide purchaser for value.7 Thus, an infant remainderman assented to a sale of the realty and payment of the proceeds to the life-tenant. It was held that he could repudiate this agreement at the death of the life-tenant, even if the title had passed to an innocent purchaser.8

14 Drude v. Curtis, 183 Mass. 317; 62 L. R. A. 755; 67 N. E. 317.

1 Barlow v. Robinson, 174 111. 317; 51 N. E. 1045; Yeager v. Knight, 60 Miss. 730; Shurtleff v. Millard, 12 R. I. 272; 34 Am. Rep. 640; Mustard v. Wohlford, 15 Gratt. (Va.) 329; 76 Am. Dec. 209.

2 Lynde v. Budd, 2 Paige (N. Y.) 191; 21 Am. Dec. 84.

3 Slator v. Trimble, 14 Ir. C. L. 342; Slator v. Brady, 14 Ir. C. L. 61.

4 Flexner v. Dickerson, 72 Ala. 318; Gregory v. Lee, 64 Conn. 407; 25 L. R. A. 618; 30 Atl. 53; Baxter v. Bush, 29 Vt. 465; 70 Am. Dec. 429.

5 McDonald v. Salmon Club, 33 N. B. 472; Tucker v. Moreland, 10 Pet. (U. S.) 59; Manning v. Johnson, 26 Ala. 446; 62 Am. Dec. 732; Hastings v. Dollarhide, 24 Cal. 195; Walker v. Pope, 101 Ga. 665; 29 S. E. 8; Tunison v. Chamblin, 88 111. 378; Keil v. Healy, 84 111. 104; 25 Am. Rep. 434; Gillenwaters v. Campbell, 142 Ind. 529; 41 N. E. 1041; Green v. Wilding, 59 Ia. 679; 44 Am. Rep. 696; 13 N. W. 761; Hoffert v. Miller, 86 Ky. 572; 6 S. W. 447; Vallandingham v. Johnson, 85 Ky. 288; 3 S. W. 173; Davis v. Dudley. 70 Me. 236; 35 Am. Rep. 318; Kendall v. Lawrence, 22 Pick.

(Mass.) 540; Ridgeway v. Herbert, 150 Mo. 606; 73 Am. St. Rep. 464; 51 S. W. 1040; Craig v. Van Beb-ber, 100 Mo. 584; 18 Am. St. Rep. 569; 13 S. W. 906; Englebert v. Troxell, 40 Neb. 195; 42 Am. St. Rep. 665; 26 L. R. A. 177; 58 N. W. 852; Roberts v. Wiggin, 1 N. H. 73; 8 Am. Dec. 38; Green v. Green, 69 N. Y. 553; 25 Am. Rep. 233; Eagle Fire Co. v. Lent, 6 Paige (N. Y.) 635; affirming, 1 Edw. Ch. (N. Y.) 301; Cresinger v. Welch, 15 Ohio 156; 45 Am. Dec. 565; Drake's Lessee v. Ramsey, 5 Ohio 251; Dolph v. Hand, 156 Pa. St. 91; 36 Am. St. Rep. 25; 27 Atl. 114; Ihley v. Padgett, 27 S. C. 300; 3 S. E. 468; Wheaton v. Easton, 5 Yerg. (Tenn.) 41; 26 Am. Dec. 251; Scott v. Buchanan, 11 Humph. (Tenn.) 468; Bullock v. Sprowl 93 Tex. 188; 77 Am. St. Rep. 849; 47 L. R. A. 326; 54 S. W. 661; Askey v. Williams, 74 Tex. 294; 5 L. R. A. 176; 11 S. W. 1101; Bigelow v. Kinney, 3 Vt. 353; 21 Am. Dec. 589; Darraugh v. Blackford, 84 Va. 509; 5 S. E. 542; Gillespie v. Bailey, 12 W. Va. 70; 29 Am. Rep. 445.

6 Dunn v. Wheeler, 86 Me. 238; 29 Atl. 985; Clapp v. Byrnes, 155 N. Y. 535; 50 N. E. 277.

Where, however, the rights of the infant and of the co-owners are inseparable, as where they were the heirs to certain realty which was subject to a conditional oil lease, and the adult owner on behalf of all sought to forfeit the lease for a breach of condition, it was held that the minor heirs could repudiate the acts of an adult co-heir in forfeiting such oil-lease if it is in fraud of their rights or by mistake but not if for their advantage.9 So an infant's mortgage of his realty is voidable,10 even if for necessaries.11 If an infant agrees to buy certain realty from A, and thereafter while still a minor surrenders his interest in such realty for a team of horses, this is a sale of his equity and not a rescission of his original contract to buy the realty; and on coming of age he may repudiate the contract by which he surrendered such interest in realty.12 His executory contracts to sell personalty,13 executed sales by him14 even if the property has passed into the hands of a bona fide purchaser,15 executed purchases by him other than necessaries,16 and chattel mortgages made by him,17 are alike voidable. The proposition that an infant's purchases are voidable has been qualified by one of our ablest text-book writers. "If an infant goes upon the streets of a city, shopping, he cannot afterward retrace his steps and get back the money he paid, even though he tenders the goods in return ; for to permit it would render shopkeeping impossible."18 But no authorities are given for this proposition and none appear on investigation. If the goods are necessaries and the price is reasonable, the contract is binding; and, in other cases, shop-keeping is perfectly possible without the patronage of minors.

7 Walker v. Pope, 101 Ga. 665; 29 S. E. 8; Vallandingham v. Johnson, 85 Ky. 288; 3 S. W. 173; Searcy v. Hunter, 81 Tex. 644; 26 Am. St. Rep. 837; 17 S. W. 372.

8 Walker v. Pope, 101 Ga. 665; 29 S. E. 8.

9 Wilson v. Goldstein, 152 Pa. St. 524; 25 Atl. 493. (Hence the minors could not on reaching majority sue on the lease.) In Springer v. Gas Co., 145 Pa. St. 430; 22 Atl. 986, it was held that if a guardian could forfeit an oil-lease on behalf of his wards, he could not bind adult co-owners.

10 Hubbard v. Cummings, 1 Me. 11; Monumental, etc., Association v. Herman, 33 Md. 128; Mansfield v. Gordon, 144 Mass. 168; 10 N. E. 773; Roberts v. Wiggin, 1 N. H. 73;

8 Am. Dec. 38; McGan v. Marshall, 7 Humph. (Tenn.) 121.

11 McGan v. Marshall, 7 Humph. (Tenn.) 121; Askey v. Williams. 74 Tex. 294; 5 L. R. A. 176; 11 S. W. 1101.

12 Beickler v. Guenther, 121 Ia. 419; 96 N. W. 895.

13 Petrie v. Williams, 68 Hun (N. Y.) 589.

14 White v. Branch, 51 Ind. 210; Williams v. Brown, 34 Me. 594; Kingman v. Perkins, 105 Mass. 1ll; Holmes v. Rice, 45 Mich. 142; Downing v. Stone, 47 Mo. App. 144; Rainwater v. Durham, 2 Nott. & McCord. (S. C.) 524; 10 Am. Dec. 637; Grace v. Hale, 2 Humph. (Tenn.) 27; 36 Am. Dec. 296; Price v. Furman, 27 Vt. 268; 65 Am. Dec. 194.