It is difficult to state a general rule which will in every case operate fairly between the infant who disaffirms a contract and the adversary party. It is evident, however, that if the infant is in every case bound to return the consideration which he has received, or its equivalent, his disability will amount to little except in executory contracts, and in cases where the infant is so prudent and careful in his management of the property which he receives under the contract, that he really does not need the protection of the law. After some conflict, it has finally been held by the weight of judicial opinion, that an infant is bound to restore so much of the consideration as he has when he disaffirms the contract, if during minority; or when he comes of age, if he disaffirms when his minority ends.1

1 MacGreal v. Taylor, 167 U. S. 688; Tucker v. Moreland, 10 Pet. (U. S.) 58; American, etc., Co. v. Dykes, 111 Ala. 178; 56 Am. St. Rep. 38; 18 So. 292; Jenkins v. Jenkins, 12 Ia. 195; Bennett v. McLaughlin, 13 111. App. 349; Shirk v. Shultz, 113 Ind. 571; 15 N. E. 12; Sanger v. Hibbard, 2 Ind. Ter. 547; 53 S. W. 330; Burgett v. Barrick, 25 Kan. 527; Morse v. Ely, 154 Mass. 458; 26 Am. St. Rep. 263; 28 N. E. 577; Dube v. Beaudry, 150 Mass. 448; 15 Am. St. Rep. 228; 6 L. R. A. 146; 23 N. E. 222; Dawson v. Helmes, 30 Minn. 107; 14 N. W. 462; Brantley v. Wolf. 60 Miss. 429; Harvey v. Briggs, 68 Miss. 60; 10 L. R. A. 62; 8 So. 274; Craig v.

Van Bebber, 100 Mo. 584; 18 Am. St. Rep. 569; 13 S. W. 906; Betts v. Carroll, 6 Mo. App. 518; Bloomer v. Nolan, 36 Neb. 51; 38 Am. St. Rep. 690; 53 N. W. 1039; Hamblett v. Hamblett, 6 N. H. 339; Green v. Green, 69 N. Y. 553; 25 Am. Rep. 233; Lane v. Coal Co., 101 Tenn. 581; 48 S. W. 1094; Grace v. Hale, 2 Humph. (Tenn.) 27; 36 Am. Dec. 296; Bullock v. Sprowls, 93 Tex. 188; 77 Am. St. Rep. 849; 47 L. R. A. 326; 54 S. W. 661; Abernathy v. Phillips, 82 Va. 769; 1 S. E. 113; Bedinger v. Wharton, 27 Gratt. (Va.) 857; Young v. Ry. Co., 42 W. Va. 112; 24 S. E. 615; Gillespie v. Bailey. 12 W. Va. 70; 29 Am. Rep. 445.

If before this time be has wasted or lost the property received by him under the contract, be is not bound to return its equivalent.2 By statute in Indiana a minor married woman who has joined with her husband in conveying realty must first restore the consideration before repudiating the sale.3 Even if the property has depreciated in value,4 as through the misuse thereof by the infant,5 or if the infant has consumed the property,6 or sold it,7 he need not account for the loss. If the consideration for the contract of the infant was money paid not to him but to some other person,8 as where it is paid to the infant's husband,9

2 Fox v. Drewry, 62 Ark. 316; 35 S. W. 533; Reynolds v. McCurry, 100 111. 356; Featherstone v. Betle-jewski, 75 111. App. 59; United States, etc., Co. v. Harris, 142 Ind. 226; 40 N. E. 1072; 41 N. E. 451; Gillenwaters v. Campbell, 142 Ind. 529; 41 N. E. 1041; Shipley v. Smith, - Ind. - ; 70 N. E. 803; White v. Cotton-Waste Corporation, 178 Mass. 20; 59 N. E. 642; Walsh v. Young, 110 Mass. 396; Chandler v. Simmons, 97 Mass. 508; 93 Am. Dec. 117; Corey v. Burton, 32 Mich. 30; Miller v. Smith, 26 Minn. 248; 37 Am. Rep. 407; 2 N. W. 942; Ridgeway v. Herbert. 150 Mo. 606; 73 Am. St. Rep. 464; 51 S. W. 1040; Craig v. Van Bebber, 100 Mo. 584; 18 Am. St. Rep. 569; 13 S. W. 906; Tower-Doyle Commission Co. v. Smith, 86 Mo. App. 490; Clark v. Tate, 7 Mont. 171; 14 Pac. 761; Englebert v. Troxell, 40 Neb. 195; 42 Am. St. Rep. 665; 26 L. R. A. 177; 58 N. W. 852; Bloomer v. Nolan. 36 Neb. 51: 38 Am. St. Rep. 690; 53 N. W. 1039; Green v. Green. 69 N. Y. 553; 25 Am. Rep. 233; Petrie v. Williams, 68 Hun (N. Y.) 589; Kincaid v. Kincaid, 85 Hun (X. Y.) 141; Youmans v. Forsythe, 86 Hun (X. Y.) 370; Lemmon v. Beeman, 45 O. S. 505;

15 X. E. 476; Lane v. Dayton, etc., Co., 101 Tenn. 581; 48 S. W. 1094; Bullock v. Sprowls, 93 Tex. 188; 77 Am. St. Rep. 849; 47 L. R. A. 326; 54 S. W. 661; Wiser v. Lock-wood, 42 Vt. 720; Price v. Furman, 27 Vt. 268; 65 Am. Dec. 194; Thor-maehlen v. Kaeppel, 86 Wis. 378; 56 X. W. 1089.

3 Blair v. Whitaker (Ind. App.), 69 X. E. 182.

4 Whitcomb v. Joslyn, 51 Vt. 79; 31 Am. Rep. 678.

5 White v. Branch, 51 Ind. 210. 6 Nichol v. Steger, 6 Lea (Tenn) 393; affirming 2 Tenn. Ch. 328.

7 Beickler v. Guenther, 121 Ia. 419; 96 X. W. 895.

8 Law v. Long, 41 Ind. 586; Wade v. Love, 69 Tex. 522; 7 S. W. 225; Vogelsang v. Null, 67 Tex. 465; 3 S. W. 451; Thormaehlen v. Kaeppel, 86 Wis. 378; 56 X. W. 1089.

9 Fox v. Drewry, 62 Ark. 316; 35 S. W. 533; Stull v. Harris, 51 Ark. 294; 2 L. R. A. 741; 11 S. W. 104; Richardson v. Pate, 93 Ind. 423; 47 Am. Rep. 374; Bradshaw v. Van Valkenburg. 97 Tenn. 310; 37 S. W. 88; Smith v. Evans, 5 Humph. (Tenn.) 70; Thormaehlen v. Kaeppel, 86 Wis. 378; 56 X. W. 1089.

or father,10 or agent,11 and the infant never in fact receives it, he is not bound to restore an equivalent. So if an infant has not received anything under his contract he is not bound to restore anything.12 The earlier cases tend to require an infant to return the consideration received by him, or its equivalent if he has squandered it; but these cases have for the most part been overruled or limited by later cases.13 Where the infant has sold the property received by him, or changed its form in some other way, it becomes a difficult question to determine how far the fund or property may be traced in order to compel its return by the infant. Where the money received was in part spent on necessaries, it has been held that the infant is not bound to repay the value of the necessaries thus obtained.14 It seems only fair that if the infant has expended stock to his father in fraud, it was held that the entire stock or the proceeds thereof could be subjected to the debt.21 In Indiana the earlier cases denied the duty of the infant to return the purchase price as a condition precedent to disaffirming a sale of realty.22 A later case has gone farther and taken the position that the infant was not liable to return the purchase money at all, even after rescission.23