Carmody v. Patchell

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Carmody v. Patchell

42 App. D.C. 426, 1914 U.S. App. LEXIS 2305

CourtDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 2, 1914

DocketNo. 2656

StatusPublished

This text of 42 App. D.C. 426 (Carmody v. Patchell) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District of Columbia Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Carmody v. Patchell, 42 App. D.C. 426, 1914 U.S. App. LEXIS 2305 (D.C. 1914).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice Bobb

delivered the opinion of the Court:

The first question presented by the assignments of error, namely, whether a minor may repudiate such a contract as is here involved during his minority, need not be determined, for the reason that before trial in the present case the plaintiff attained and suggested his majority, and evinced his desire to repudiate the contract by obtaining leave to prosecute the suit in his own name. Stater v. Rudderforth, 25 App. D. C. 497.

The second question raised, namely, whether, after repudiation of such a contract, money paid thereon may be recovered, likewise has been determined adversely to the defendant’s contentions. Gannon v. Manning, ante, 206.

The judgment, therefore, must be affirmed with costs.

Affirmed.

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