At common law, any person under the age of twenty-one is an infant, but by statute in a number of states the period of infancy is, in the case of females, reduced to eighteen years, and, in some, the marriage of a female infant gives her the powers of an adult married woman.19

Baygents v. Beard, 41 Miss. 531; Currier v. Teske, 84 Neb. 60, 120 N. W. 1015; Walker v. Long, 109 N. C. 510, 14 S. E. 299; Reagle v. Reagle, 179 Pa. 89, 36 Atl. 891.

13. Jewell v. Porter, 31 N. H. 34; McMillan v. Cheeney, 30 Minn. 519, 16 N. W. 404. And this could be effected, under the Statute of Uses, by a conveyance to a third person of the legal title, to the use of the wife, the use being executed by the statute in the latter. 1 Roper, Husb. & Wife, 53.

14. Jones v. Clifton, 101 U. S. 225, 228, 25 L. Ed. 908; Moore v. Page, 111 U. S. 117, 28 L. Ed. 373; Powe v. McLeod, 76 Ala. 418; Wilder v. Brooks, 10 Minn. 50, 88 Am. Dec. 49; Wells V. Wells, 35 Miss. 638; Turner v. Shaw, 96 Mo. 22, 9 Am. St. Rep. 319, 8 S. W. 897; Furrow v. Athey, 21 Neb. 671, 59 Am. Rep. 867, 33 N. W. 208; Vought's Ex'rs v. Vought, 50 N. J. Eq. 177, 27 Atl. 489; Shepard v. Shepard, 7 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 57, 11 Am. Dec. 396; Crooks v. Crooks, 34 Ohio St. 610; Coates v. Gerlach, 44 Pa. St. 43; Humphrey v. Spencer, 36 W. Va. 11, 14 S. E. 410; Albright v. Albright, 70 Wis. 528, 36 N. W. 254.

15. 34 & 35 Hen. VIII. c. 5, Sec. 14.

16. 1 Jarman, Wills, 39, Bigo-low's note.

17. 1 Stimson's Am. St. Law, Sec. 6460; 1 Woerner, Administration, Sec. 21.

18. 1 Jarman, Wills, 41; 2 Perry, Trusts, Sec. 668.

A transfer inter vivos of an estate or interest in land by an infant is voidable, though not void, that is, it is effective to transfer title unless it is repudiated by him after attaining his majority;20 and it may be repudiated by him, although the grantee has conveyed to a purchaser for value without notice.21 The right to avoid a conveyance made by an infant does not, however, extend to conveyances made by him in the execution of a trust, or as the holder of a bare legal title.22

19. 1 Blackst. Comm. 463: 2 Kent's Comm. 233; 1 Stimson's Am. St. Law, Sec. 6601.

20. Irvine v. Irvine, 9 Wall. (U. S.) 617, 19 L. Ed. 800; Slaughter v. Cunningham, 24 Ala. 260, 60 Am. Dec. 463; Green v. Wilding, 59 Iowa, 679, 44 Am. Rep. 696; Syck v. Hellier, 140 Ky. 388, 131 S. W. 30; Davis v. Dudley, 70 Me. 236, 35 Am. Rep. 318; Craig v. Van Bebber, 100 Mo. 584, 18 Am. St. Rep. 569, 13 S. W. 906, and note; Englebert v. Troxell, 40 Neb. 195, 26 L. R. A. 177, 42 Am. St. Rep. 665, 58 N. W. 858; Bool v. Mix, 17 Wend. (N. Y.) 119, 31 Am. Dec. 285; Baggett v. Jackson, 160 N. C. 26, 76 S. E. 86; Logan v. Gardner, 136 Pa. 588, 20 Am. St. Rep. 939, 20 Atl. 625; Gillespie v. Bailey, 12 W. Va. 70, 29 Am. Rep. 445. Though a conveyance of land by an infant is thus subject to avoidance by him, a binding sale and conveyance of his land may, as before stated, in most jurisdictions, be effected by a judicial proceeding. See ante. Sec. 553.

That if the joinder of a husband in his wife's deed, as required by statute is repudiated by him on account of his infancy, the deed is wholly void, see Jackson v. Beard, 162 N. C. 105, 78 S. E. 6; Barker v. Wilson, 4 Heisk. (Tenn.) 268.

21. Harrod v. Myers, 21 Ark. 592, 76 Am. Dec. 409; Sims v. Smith, 86 Ind. 577; Jenkins v. Jenkins, 12 Iowa, 195; Brantley v. Wolf, 60 Miss. 420; Jackson v. Beard, 162 N. C. 105, 78 S. E. 6; McMorris v. Webb, 17 S. C. 558, 43 Am. Rep. 629; Searcy v. Hunter, 81 Tex. 644, 26 Am. St. Rep. 837, 17 S. W. 372; Mustard v. Wohlford's Heirs, 15 Gratt. (Va.) 329, 340, 76 Am. Dec. 209.

22. Tucker v. Moreland, 10 Pet. (U. S.) 58, 67, 9 L. Ed. 345; Elliott v. Horn, 10 Ala. 348, 44 Am. Dec. 488; Nordholt v. Nordholt, 87 Cal. 552, 22 Am. St. Rep. 268, 26 Pac. 599; Prouty v. Edgar, 6 Iowa, 353; Bridges v. Bidwell, 20 Neb. 185, 29 N. W. 302; Starr v. Wright, 20 Ohio St. 97.

In some cases the courts have regarded the grantor as estopped to assert his infancy when he induced one to pay a consideration for the land by false representations as to his age,23 a view which is, however, not adopted in most jurisdictions.24

An infant married woman stands, in respect to her right to avoid any conveyance made by her, upon the same footing as any other infant, and her disability of infancy is not removed by a statute authorizing married women to make conveyances.25

Avoidance of conveyance. At common law, an infant's conveyance by livery of seisin could be avoided only by an act of equal solemnity, such as an entry, and it has sometimes been stated that the avoidance of any conveyance must be by entry or some other act of equal notoriety with the conveyance.26 The modern view generally is, however, that any act indicative of an intention to repudiate the conveyance is sufficient.27 Accordingly, an avoidance of the conveyance has been held to have been effected, not only by an entry upon the land,28 but also by an action of ejectment by the infant to recover the land,29 a suit by him to set aside the conveyance,30 a conveyance to another person inconsistent with the former conveyance,31 or a notice to his grantee of an intention to disaffirm the conveyance.32

23. Patterson v. Lawrence, 90 111. 174; Asher v. Bennett, 143 Ky. 361, 136 S. W. 879; Ostrander v. Quin, 84 Miss. 230, 105 Am. St. Rep. 426, 36 So. 257; Ryan v. Growney, 125 Mo. 474, 28 S. W. 189, 755; Hayes v. Parker, 41 N. J. Eq. 630, 7 Atl. 511. See Vogelsang v. Null, 67 Tex. 465, 3 S. W. 451; Thormaehlen v. Kaeppel, 86 Wis. 378, 56 N. W. 1089; 1 Story, Eq. Jur. Sec. 385; 2 Pomeroy, Eq. Jur. Sec. 945.

24. Sims v. Everhardt, 102 U. S. 300, 26 L. Ed. 87; Watson v. Billings, 38 Ark. 278, 42 Am. Rep. 1; Beauchamp v. Bertig, 90 Ark. 351, 23- L. R. A. (N. S.) 659, 119 S. W. 75; Wieland v. Kobick, 110 111. 16, 51 Am. Rep. 676; Merriam v. Cunningham, 11 Cush. (Mass.) 40; Ridgeway v. Herbert, 150 Mo. 606. 73 Am. St. Rep. 464, 51 S. W. 1040; Studwell v. Shapter, 54 N. Y. 249; International Text Book Co. v.