Connelly, 206 N. Y. 188, 99 N. E. 722; Carolina Interstate Building & Loan Ass'n v. Black, 119 N. C. 323, 25 S. E. 975. In some states the statute prohibits the disaffirmance of a contract by an infant if the action of the other party in entering therein was induced by the infant's representations. 1 Stimson's Am. St. Law Sec. 6602(D).

25. Greenwood v. Coleman, 34 Ala. 150; Watson v. Billings, 38 Ark. 278, 42 Am. Rep. 1; Law v. Long, 41 Ind. 586; Hoyt v. Swar, 53 111. 134; Walsh v. Young, 110 Mass. 396; Sandford v. McLean, 3 Paige (N. Y.) 117, 23 Am. Dec. 773; Epps v. Flowers, 101 N. C. 158, 7 S. E. 680; Hughes v|. Watson, 10 Ohio, 127; Mc-Morris v. Webb, 17 S. C. 558, 43 Am. Rep. 629.

26. Jackson v. Burchin, 14 Johns. (N. Y.) 124; Bool v. Mix, 17 Wend. (N. Y.) 119, 31 Am.

Dec. 285; Rogers v. Hurd, 4 Day (Conn.) 57; O'Donohue v. Smith, 130 N. Y. App. Div. 214, 114 N. Y. Supp. 536. See Irvine v. Irvine, 9 Wall. (U. S.) 617, 19 L. Ed. 800.

27. McCarty v. Nicrosi, 72 Ala. 332, 47 Am. Rep. 418; Long v. Williams, 74 Ind. 115; Singer Mfg. Co. v. Lamb, 81 Mo. 221; State v. Plaisted, 43 N. H. 413; Drake's Lessee v. Ramsay, 5 Ohio, 252.

28. Inhabitants of Worcester v. Eaton, 13 Mass. 371, 7 Am. Dec. 155; Green v. Green. 69 N. Y. 553, 25 Am. Rep. 233; Shrock v. Cowl, 83 Ind. 243; Tucker v. Moreland, 10 Pet. (U. S.) 58, 9 L. Ed. 345.

29. Cole v. Pennoyer, 14 111 158; Chadbourne v. Rackliff, 30 Me. 354; Conn v. Boutwell, 101 Miss. 353, 58 So. 105; Craig v. Van Bebber, 100 Mo. 584, 18 Am St. Rep. 569, 13 S. W. 906; Clark v. Tate, 7 Mont 171, 14 Pac. 761; Birch v. Linton, 78 Va. 584, 49 Am. Rep. 381. But occasionally it has been held that there must be a disaffirmance before suit. Law v. Long, 41 Ind. 586; Bool v. Mix. 17 Wend. (N. Y.) 119, 31 Am. Dec. 285; Voorhies v. Voorhies, 24 Barb.

(N. Y.) 150; Tomczek v. Wieser, 58 N. Y. Misc. 46, 108 N. Y. Supp. 784.

30. Watson v. Billings, 38 Ark. 278, 42 Am. Rep. 1; Slater v. Rudderforth, 25 App. Cas. (D. C.) 497; Tunison v. Chamblin, 88 111. 378; Gillespie v. Bailey, 12 W. Va. 70, 29 Am. Rep. 445. Contra, O'Donohue v. Smith, 130 N Y. App. Div. 214, 114 N. Y. Supp. 536.

31. Tucker v. Moreland, 10 Pet. (U. S.) 58, 9 L. Ed. 345; Black v. Hills, 36 111. 376, 87 Am. Dec. 224; Ison v. Cornett, 116 Ky. 92, 75 S. W. 204; Corbett v. Spencer, 63 Mich. 731, 30 N. W. 385; Peterson v. Laik, 24 Mo. 541, 69 Am. Dec. 441; Ridgeway v. Herbert, 150 Mo. 606, 73 Am. St. Rep. 464, 51 S. W. 1040; State v. Plaisted, 43 N. H. 413; Mustard v. Wohlford's Heirs, 15 Gratt. (Va.) 329, 76 Am. Dec. 209. See notes 18 Am. St. Rep. 665, 3 Ann. Cas. 593.

32. Scranton v. Stewart, 52 Ind. 68; Schroyer v. Pittenger. 31 Ind. App. 158, 67 N. E. 475; Roberts v. Wiggin, 1 N. H. 73, 8 Am. Dec. 38; McCarty v. Woodstock Iron Co., 92 Ala. 463, 12 L. R. A. 136, 8 So. 417. That a denial in a pleading of the exeThe conveyance cannot ordinarily be avoided by the infant until after he arrives at the age of majority.33 His infancy may however, even before that time, be asserted by him as a defense to an action to foreclose a mortgage made by him,34 and it has been said that if an infant makes a conveyance he may, even during infancy, enter and enjoy the profits.35 It he dies before either repudiating or affirming the conveyance, his heirs or personal representatives, whichever would be otherwise entitled to the land, may repudiate it.36

In order that one may avoid a conveyance made by him during infancy, it is not necessary that he return the consideration received by him, unless he still has the specific consideration received.37 cution of a deed involves a repudiation thereof, see Ricks v. Wilson, 154 N. C. 282, 70 S. E. 476.

33. Sims v. Everhardt, 102 U. S. 300, 26 L. Ed. 87; Tucker v. Moreland, 10 Pet. (U. S.) 58, 75, 9 L. Ed. 345; Harrod v. Myers, 21 Ark. 592, 76 Am. Dec. 409; Welch v. Bunce, 83 Ind. 382; Chandler v. Simmons, 97 Mass. 508, 93 Am. Dec. 117; Shipley v. Bunn, 125 Mo. 445, 28 S. W. 754; Emmons v. Murray, 16 N. H. 385; Bool v. Mix, 17 Wend. (N. Y.) 119, 31 Am. Dec. 285; Zouch v. Parsons, 3 Burrows, 179.

34. Watson v. Renderman, 79 Conn. 687, 66 Atl. 515; Schneider v. Staihr, 20 Mo. 269.

35. Zouch v. Parsons, 3 Burrows, 1794, 1808; Bool v. Mix, 17 Wend. (N. Y.) 119, 31 Am. Dec. 285; Cummings v. Powell, 8 Tex. 80.

36. Bozeman v. Browning, 31 Ark. 364; Illinois Land & Loan Co. v. Bonner, 75 111. 315; Gillenwaters v. Campbell, 142 Ind. 529, 41 N. E. 1041; Austin v. Trustees of Charlestown Female Seminary, 8 Metc. (Mass.) 196, 41 Am. Dec. 497; Harvey v. Briggs, 68 Miss. 60, 10 L. R. A. 62, 8 So. 274; Singer Mfg. Co. v. Lamb, 81 Mo. 221; Blake v. Hollandsworth, 71 W. Va. 387, 43 L. R. A. (N S.) 714, 76 S. E. 814.

37. American Freehold Land Mortgage Co. v. Dykes, 111 Ala. 178, 56 Am. St. Rep. 38, 18 So. 292; Stull v. Harris, 51 Ark. 294; Putnal v. Walker, 61 Fla. 720. 36 L. R. A. (N. S.) 33, 55 So. 844; Chandler v. Simmons. 97 Mass 508, 93 Am. Dec. 117: Brantley v. Wolf, 60 Miss. 420; Ridgeway v. Herbert, 150 Mo. 606, 70 Am. St. Rep,. 464. 51 S. W. 1040; Englebert v. Troxell, 46 Neb. 195, 26 L. R. A. 177, 42 Am. St. Rep. 665, 58 N. W. 853; Green v. Green, 69 N. Y. 553. 25 Am. Rep. 233; Bullock v. Sprowls, 93 Tex. 188, 47 L. R. A. 326, 77 Am. St. Rep. 849, 54 S. W. 661. In Mac Greal v. Taylor, 167 U.

Ratification. If the infant, after arriving at majority, affirms or ratifies the conveyance by unequivocally recognizing it as valid, he is thereafter precluded from repudiating it.38 The effect of such a ratification is to take from the conveyance the infirmity therein arising from the infancy of the grantor,39 and a decision to the effect that, in spite of such ratification, the grantor can render the conveyance invalid by making a conflicting conveyance to a bona fide purchaser for value,40 would seem to be open to serious question, in the absence of any statutory requirement that the ratification of a conveyance by an infant shall appear on the records.