Hoffman v. Edson Co.

Ohio Court of Appeals

Hoffman v. Edson Co.

173 N.E. 307, 37 Ohio App. 262, 7 Ohio Law. Abs. 388, 1929 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 1161, 1929 Ohio App. LEXIS 485

CourtOhio Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 20, 1929

DocketNo 10021

StatusPublished

This text of 173 N.E. 307 (Hoffman v. Edson Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hoffman v. Edson Co., 173 N.E. 307, 37 Ohio App. 262, 7 Ohio Law. Abs. 388, 1929 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 1161, 1929 Ohio App. LEXIS 485 (Ohio Ct. App. 1929).

Pincite

Opinion

RICHARDS, J.

In Spencer vs. Collins, et al., 156 California, 296, it was held that notice of disaffirmance need only be given to the party with whom the contract was made and need not be given to an assignee of the contract. See also Downing vs. Stone, 47 Mo. App., 144.

An infant, either before or within a reasonalbe time after becoming of age may disaffirm a contract not for necessaries. In the instant case, on electing to disaffirm, he caused the property to be returned, and this court is of the opinion that he was not required to do any more than that. While the application for credit signed by Hoffman gives his age as twenty four years, his testimony that he stated his age as twenty years and that the seller filled in the age as twenty four years is uncontradicted.

On the evidence contained in the bill of exceptions we think the trial court was in error in holding that there was no defense to the merits of the case, and for this reason the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings.

Williams and Lloyd, JJ, concur.

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

RICHARDS, J.

In Spencer vs. Collins, et al., 156 California, 296, it was held that notice of disaffirmance need only be given to the party with whom the contract was made and need not be given to an assignee of the contract. See also Downing vs. Stone, 47 Mo. App., 144.

An infant, either before or within a reasonalbe time after becoming of age may disaffirm a contract not for necessaries. In the instant case, on electing to disaffirm, he caused the property to be returned, and this court is of the opinion that he was not required to do any more than that. While the application for credit signed by Hoffman gives his age as twenty four years, his testimony that he stated his age as twenty years and that the seller filled in the age as twenty four years is uncontradicted.

On the evidence contained in the bill of exceptions we think the trial court was in error in holding that there was no defense to the merits of the case, and for this reason the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings.

Williams and Lloyd, JJ, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

173 N.E. 307, 37 Ohio App. 262, 7 Ohio Law. Abs. 388, 1929 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 1161, 1929 Ohio App. LEXIS 485, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hoffman-v-edson-co-ohioctapp-1929.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack