On disaffirmance of the contract by the infant, the rights of the parties are to be determined without any reference to the provisions of the contract.1 Thus, an infant agreeing to work for necessaries may repudiate bis contract and recover a reasonable compensation.2 If be repudiates the contract of employment be can recover the difference between the reasonable value of bis services and what has been paid him.3 So a minor who works for five months under a contract for two years, and is paid for four months and then avoids his contract cannot recover more than a fair value for his work less what he has received.4 In an action by a minor for his wages it is no defense that be agreed to forfeit wages by leaving without two weeks' notice.5 So an infant lessee who avoids the lease at majority is not liable for a breach of conditions.6 So on avoiding a sale by the infant's recovering mortgaged property and vendor's recovering property sold, no liability remains.7 The better view, therefore, is that on repudiating a contract the infant cannot be held for damages caused by the breach of his contract;8 though the contrary view has been expressed.9 Since an infant who repudiates his contract cannot be held for damages, directly, the same result cannot be accomplished indirectly by allowing a lien to be enforced against his property.10 A minor on rescinding a purchase of realty is chargeable with the rents and profits from the time of taking possession.11 He has a lien on the realty to secure the return of the purchase money paid in by him,12 but the infant cannot recover money paid in under the contract by another. Thus, land was deeded to A, an infant feme covert, under contract with B, A's husband, to build a house thereon. B furnished some money to complete the house. On rescinding, A cannot recover the money paid by B.13 His mere disaffirmance of the sale of realty to him does not re-vest the legal title in the vendor, but a suit in equity to cancel the conveyance is an appropriate remedy.14 On rescinding a sale of realty, the infant may be held liable for the value of the improvements erected upon the realty by the purchaser,15 though it has been held that his liability is limited to the increased rental value of the property.16 While as we have seen the adversary party may be subrogated to the rights of the lien-holders whom he has paid, the facts which entitle him to subrogation must be alleged by him.17 His mere disaffirmance of a conveyance made by him is now held to re-vest the legal title in him, so as to allow him to sue in ejectment.18 In sales of personalty to the infant, the title is re-vested in the vendor on disaffirmance and he may recover the specific chattel if in the infant's possession,19 or its value if he has had it in his possession or under his control after rescinding.20

14 Hobbs v. R. R., 122 Ala. 602; 82 Am. St. Rep. 103; 26 So. 139; Stout v. Merrill. 35 Ia. 47; Bing-ham v. Barley, 55 Tex. 281; 40 Am. Rep. 801.

15 Moore v. Baker, 92 Ky. 518; 18 S. W. 363; Vallandingham v. Johnson. 85 Ky. 288; 3 S. W. 173; Cre-singer v. Welch, 15 Ohio 156; 45 Am. Dec. 565.

16 Brawner v. Franklin, 4 Gill (Md.) 463; Mustard v. Wohlford, 15 Gratt. (Va.) 329; 76 Am. Dec. 209.

17 Hobs v. R. R., 122 Ala. 602;

82 Am. St. Rep. 103; 26 So. 139.

18 At law. Manning v. Johnson, 26 Ala. 446; 62 Am. Dec. 732. In equity. Monumental, etc., Association v. Herman, 33 Md. 128.

19 Miller v. Smith. 26 Minn. 248; 37 Am. Rep. 407; 2 N. W. 942.

20 Green v. Green, 69 N. Y. 553; 25 Am. Rep. 233. See Sec. 888.

21 Graves v. Hickman, 59 Tex. 381.

1 Myers v. Rehkopf. 30 111. App. 209; Danville v. Mfg. Co., 62 N. H. 133.

2 Meredith v. Crawford, 34 Ind. 399; Wheatly v. Miscal, 5 Ind. 142; Van Pelt v. Corwine, 6 Ind. 363; overruling Harney v. Owen, 4 Blackf. (Ind.) 337; 30 Am. Dec. 662; Morse v. Ely, 154 Mass. 458; 26 Am. St. Rep. 263; 28 N. E. 577; Tower-Doyle Commission Co. v. Smith, 86 Mo. App. 490.

3 Hagerty v. Lock Co., 62 N. H. 576 (if his services at first were worth less than he was paid, this fact must be considered) ; Hoxie v. Lincoln. 25 Vt. 206.

4 Hagerty v. Lock Co., 62 N. H. 576.

5 Danville v. Manufacturing Co., 62 N. H. 133; and see Dearden v. Adams, 19 R. I. 217; 36 Atl. 3.

88

6 Harrison v. Burns, 84 Ia. 446; 51 N. W. 165.

7 Stotts v. Leonhard, 40 Mo. App. 336.

8 Derocher v. Mills, 58 Me. 217; 4 Am. Rep. 286; Widrig v. Taggart, 51 Mich. 103; 16 N. W. 251.

9 Moses v. Stevens, 2 Pick. (Mass.) 332; Lowe v. Sinklear, 27 Mo. 308; Thomas v. Dike, 11 Vt. 273; 34 Am. Dec. 690.

10 McCarty v. Carter, 49 111. 53; 95 Am. Dee. 572; Alvey v. Reed, 115 Ind. 148; 7 Am. St. Rep. 418; 17 N. E. 265; Bloomer v. Nolan, 35 Neb. 51; 38 Am. St. Rep. 690; 53 N. W. 1039.

11 Scott v. Scott, 29 S. C. 414; 7 S. E. 811.

12 Scott v. Scott, 29 S. C. 414; 7 S. E. 811; Morris v. Holland, 10 Tex. Civ. App. 474; 31 S. W. 690.

13 Jennings v. Hare, 47 S. C. 279; 25 S. E. 198; distinguishing Scott v. Scott, 29 S. C. 414; 7 S. E. 811; in which the minor had furnished the money and was allowed to recover it on rescinding.

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

15 Runale v. Spencer, 67 Mich. 189; 34 N. W. 548.

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

17 Bradshaw v. Van Valkenburg, 97 Tenn. 316; 37 S. W. 88.

18 See Sec. 873, 886.

19 Bennett v. McLaughlin, 13 111. App. 349; Shirk v. Shultz, 113 Ind. 571; 15 N. E. 12; Bailey v. Barnberger, 11 B. Mon. (Ky.) 113; Badger v. Phinney, 15 Mass. 359; 8 Am. Dec. 105; Heath v. West. 28 N. H. 101; Kitchen v. Lee, 11 Paige (X. Y.) 107; 42 Am. Dec. 101; Lynde v. Budd, 2 Paige Ch. (N. Y.) 191; 21 Am. Dec. 84; Farr v. Sumner, 12 Vt. 28; 36 Am. Dec. 327.

20 Shuford v. Alexander, 74 Ga. 293; Strain v. Wright, 7 Ga. 568; Jefford v. Ringgold, 6 Ala. 544; Briggs v. McCabe., 27 Ind. 327; 89 Am. Dee. 503; Carpenter v. Carpenter. 45 Ind. 142; Shirk v. Shultz, 113 Ind. 571; 15 N. E. 12; Badger v. Phinney, 15 Mass. 359; 8 Am.