Dinsmore v. Webber

59 Me. 103
CourtSupreme Judicial Court of Maine
DecidedJuly 1, 1871
StatusPublished

This text of 59 Me. 103 (Dinsmore v. Webber) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Judicial Court of Maine primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Dinsmore v. Webber, 59 Me. 103 (Me. 1871).

Opinion

Appleton, C. J.

The bounty money paid upon a minor’s enlistment belongs to the person enlisting and not to his parent or master. The alleged contract between the plaintiff’s intestate and the defendant was voidable, and might haye been avoided by him during his life-time. Mears. v. Bickford, 55 Maine, 528; Kelley v. Sprowle, 97 Mass. 169; Banks v. Conant, 14 Allen, 497.

The plaintiff represents the intestate and has his right of rescission. Hardy v. Waters, 38 Maine, 450; Roberts v. Wiggin, 1 N. H. 74; Person v. Chase, 37 Vt. 647; Hussey v. Jewett, 9 Mass. 100.

As the infant could have rescinded the alleged contract, so can his executor or administrator. The default to stand.

Cutting, Kent, Bamiows, DaNfouth, and Tapley, JJ., concurred.

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

Related

Hussey v. Jewett
9 Mass. 100 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1812)
Kelly v. Sprout
97 Mass. 169 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1867)
Person v. Chase
37 Vt. 647 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1865)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
59 Me. 103, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dinsmore-v-webber-me-1871.