Dinsmore v. Webber

59 Me. 103
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine·Decided July 1, 1871·Published

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As the infant could have rescinded the alleged contract, so can his executor or administrator.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

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

59 Me. 103 (Dinsmore v. Webber) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

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)