The modern rule is that no set form of disaffirmance is necessary, but that the infant's intention to disaffirm together with any conduct on his part which makes this intention clear constitutes a sufficient disaffirmance.1 It was once held that a Common Law conveyance such as feoffment, could be avoided only by an act of equal notoriety ;2 but this rule has no application to modern forms of conveyances.3 Undoubtedly, re-entry with intent to hold land adversely will avoid a deed,4 or a grant of an easement, as a right to construct a sewer across his land.5 However, the act of an executor in taking possession of realty does not bind a minor heir to avoid the deed.6

Am. Dec. 565; Drake v. Ramsay, 5 Ohio 252; Birch v. Linton, 78 Va. 584; 49 Am. Rep. 381; Gillespie v. Bailey. 12 W. Va. 70; 29 Am. Rep. 445.

31 Birch v. Linton, 78 Va. 584; 49 Am. Rep. 381.

32 Cresinger v. Welch. 15 Ohio 156; 45 Am. Dec. 565.

33 Keil v. Healey, 84 111. 104; 25 Am. Rep. 434.

34 Overbach v. Heermance, 1 Hopk. Ch. (X. Y.) 337; 14 Am. Dec. 546.

1 Bagley v. Fletcher. 44 Ark. 153; Long v. Williams, 74 Ind. 115; Shrcyer v. Pittinger, 31 Ind. App.

158; 67 X. E. 475; Cogley v. Cush-man, 16 Minn. 397; Chapin v. Sha-fer, 49 X. Y. 407.

2 Jackson v. Burchin. 14 Johns. (X. Y.) 124; Bool v. Mix, 17 Wend. (X. Y.) 119; 31 Am. Dec. 285.

3 Slaughter v. Cunningham, 24 Ala. 260; 60 Am. Dec. 463.

4 Harrod v. Myers. 21 Ark. 592; 76 Am. Dec. 409 (obiter).

5 McCarthy v. Nicrosi, 72 Ala. 332: 47 Am. Rep. 418.

6 Cardwell v. Rogers, 76 Tex. 37; 12 S. W. 1006 (the deed was made by the donee of an invalid power given by the testator who devised the land to the infant).

An executed conveyance of realty may also be avoided by an action of ejectment;' or by a suit to cancel the deed;8 or by an answer in an ejectment suit, where the infant or one claiming under him is in possession of the realty ;9 or by a deed executed by the former infant after majority, and inconsistent with the deed executed by him before majority.10 Thus, an infant can disaffirm a mortgage by giving notice on the day of the foreclosure sale that her interest cannot be sold and by conveying her land by warranty deed.11 A deed to an infant may be disaffirmed by him at majority by a letter demanding back the installment of the purchase price already paid in.12 An executed contract for the sale or mortgage of personal property may also be avoided by an act inconsistent with the former act such as a second conveyance.13 As a sale of property mortgaged by an infant is a disaffirmance of the mortgage it is hence not a crime.14 A purchase of personalty by an infant may be avoided by notice of disaffirmance ;15 or by suit for the purchase price;16 or by delivering the chattel bought to the vendor, and acquiescing in a suit by his next friend to recover the money paid for it.17 So a mortgage may be disaffirmed by a plea of infancy in a suit to enforce it. Thus, a minor mortgaged a steamboat. At the time the mortgage became due the court appointed a receiver and granted an injunction. Both orders were set aside on motion, it appearing that the mortgagor had not affirmed the mortgage after reaching majority and now disaffirmed it by plea.18 An executory contract may be disaffirmed by notice or its equivalent,19 or by interposing infancy as a defense to a suit thereon.20 An infant should offer to rescind to the adversary party - not to a purchaser from the adversary.21

7 Cole v. Pennoyer. 14 111. 158; Haynes v. Bennett, 53 Mich. 15; 18 N. W. 539; Craig v. Van Bebber, 100 Mo. 584; 18 Am. St. Rep. 569; 13 S. W. 906; Harris v. Ross, 86 Mo. 89; 56 Am. Rep. 411; Drake v. Ramsay. 5 Ohio 252; Birch v. Linton, 78 Va. 584; 49 Am. Rep. 381.

8 Englebert v. Troxell. 40 Neb. 195; 42 Am. St. Rep. 665; 26 L. R. A. 177; 58 N. W. 852.

9 Ridgeway v. Herbert. 150 Mo. 606; 73 Am. St. Rep. 464; 51 S. W. 1040.

10 Tucker v. Moreland, 10 Pet. (U. S.) 58; Scott v. Brown, 106 Ala. 604; 17 So. 731; Hastings v. Dol-larhide. 24 Cal. 195; Losey v. Bond, 94 Ind. 67; Long v. Williams. 74 Ind. 115: Estep v. Estep (Ky.), 73 S. W. 777: Moore v. Baker. 92 Ky. 518; 18 S. W. 363; Vallanding-ham v. Johnson. 85 Ky. 288; 3 S. W. 173; Corbett v. Spencer, 63

Mich. 731; 30 N. W. 385; Haynes v. Bennett, 53 Mich. 15; 18 X. W. 539; Dawson v. Helmes, 30 Minn. 107; 14 X. W. 462; Ridgeway v. Herbert, 150 Mo. 606; 73 Am. St. Rep. 464; 51 S. W. 1040; Peterson v. Laik, 24 Mo. 541; 69 Am. Dec. 441; Roberts v. Wiggin, 1 X. H. 73; 8 Am. Dec. 38; Bool v. Mix. 17 Wend. (N. Y.) 119; 31 Am. Dec. 285; Cresinger v. Welch, 15 Ohio 156; 45 Am. Dec. 505.

11 Scott v. Brown, 106 Ala. 604; 17 So. 731.

12 McCarty v. Iron Co.. 92 Ala. 463; 12 L. R. A. 136; 8 So. 417.

13 Chapin v. Shafer, 4!) X. Y. 407.

14 State v. Plaisted. 43 X. H. 413; Jones v. State. 31 Tex. Crim. Rep. 252: 20 S. W. 578.

15 Stack v. Cavanaugh, 67 X. H. 149: 30 Atl. 350.

16 Lemmon v. Beeman, 45 O. S. 505: 15 X. E. 476.