Bell v. Swainsboro Fertilizer Co.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Bell v. Swainsboro Fertilizer Co.

76 S.E. 756, 12 Ga. App. 81, 1912 Ga. App. LEXIS 34

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedDecember 21, 1912

Docket4480

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 76 S.E. 756 (Bell v. Swainsboro Fertilizer Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bell v. Swainsboro Fertilizer Co., 76 S.E. 756, 12 Ga. App. 81, 1912 Ga. App. LEXIS 34 (Ga. Ct. App. 1912).

Pincite

Opinion

Pottle, J.

A contract made by an infant is not void, but merely voidable) upon Ms election, either during minority or within a reasonable time after majority, to disaffirm. Strain v. Wright, 7 Ga. 568; Gonackey v. General Accident Assurance Corporation, 6 Ga. App. 381 (65 S. E. 53); Bentley v. Greer, 100 Ga. 35 (27 S. E. 974); Vinson v. State, 124 Ga. 19 (52 S. E. 79). Retention after majority of the fruits of a contract made during infancy may amount to ratification. Civil Code (1910), § 4233; Williams v. Torley, 136 Ga. 594 (71 S. E. 881, 36 L. R. A. (N. S.) 57). But even where' the consideration received by the infant has been consumed or destroyed by him during infancy, if, after arriving at majority, he expressly ratifies the contract and promises performance, he is bound, although he received no new consideration. See Bryan v. Walton, 14 Ga. 187 (21); Martin v. Byrom, Dudley, 203. Applying the foregoing principles to the facts of the present case, the verdict against the infant was warranted; and as no errors of law are complained of, the judgment overruling the motion for a new trial must be affirmed. Judgment affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Pottle, J.

A contract made by an infant is not void, but merely voidable) upon Ms election, either during minority or within a reasonable time after majority, to disaffirm. Strain v. Wright, 7 Ga. 568; Gonackey v. General Accident Assurance Corporation, 6 Ga. App. 381 (65 S. E. 53); Bentley v. Greer, 100 Ga. 35 (27 S. E. 974); Vinson v. State, 124 Ga. 19 (52 S. E. 79). Retention after majority of the fruits of a contract made during infancy may amount to ratification. Civil Code (1910), § 4233; Williams v. Torley, 136 Ga. 594 (71 S. E. 881, 36 L. R. A. (N. S.) 57). But even where' the consideration received by the infant has been consumed or destroyed by him during infancy, if, after arriving at majority, he expressly ratifies the contract and promises performance, he is bound, although he received no new consideration. See Bryan v. Walton, 14 Ga. 187 (21); Martin v. Byrom, Dudley, 203. Applying the foregoing principles to the facts of the present case, the verdict against the infant was warranted; and as no errors of law are complained of, the judgment overruling the motion for a new trial must be affirmed. Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

76 S.E. 756, 12 Ga. App. 81, 1912 Ga. App. LEXIS 34, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bell-v-swainsboro-fertilizer-co-gactapp-1912.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack