Manning v. Gannon

D.C. Circuit

Manning v. Gannon

44 App. D.C. 98, 1915 U.S. App. LEXIS 2684

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedNovember 1, 1915

DocketNo. 2795

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 44 App. D.C. 98 (Manning v. Gannon) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Manning v. Gannon, 44 App. D.C. 98, 1915 U.S. App. LEXIS 2684 (D.C. Cir. 1915).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice Robb

delivered the opinion of the Court:

• Upon the prior appeal it was ruled, in a carefully prepared opinion by Mr. Justice Van Orsdel, that under the evidence plaintiffs exercised their right to disaffirm the contract within a reasonable time after they became of age. But it is now urged that under the evidence adduced at the second trial, it was the duty of the court to submit to the jury the question whether the plaintiffs, by their conduct, affirmed the contract. To this we cannot assent. The alleged attempted sale by the plaintiffs occurred at about the time they became of age, that is, between August 24th and August 29th. On September 9th, following, the plaintiffs first learned of their rights, whereupon they immediately notified the defendants of the rescission of the contract. It is a general rule that to effect a confirmation of a contract entered into during infancy, the act must have been done with knowledge that the contract was voidable. Irvine v. Irvine, 9 Wall. 617, 19 L. ed. 800; Owen v. Long, 112 Mass. 403; Baker v. Kennett, 54 Mo. 82; Fetrow v. Wiseman, 40 Ind. 148; Steele v. Poe, 79 S. C. 407, 60 S. E. 951; Hatch v. Hatch, 60 Vt. 160, 13 Atl. 791; Trader v. Lowe, 45 Md. 1, This is a reasonable rule, since it cannot be said that an infant intends to affirm a contract when he is in ignorance that affirmation is necessary; that is, when he is in ignorance of his rights. It is for this reason that it generally has been held-that mere acquiescence, though long continued, will not amount to ratification. In the present case, there are no circumstances tending to show that when the plaintiffs are alleged to have attempted to make a sale of the property they had any knowledge that their contract with the defendants was voidable on the ground of infancy. That, therefore, did not amount to such conduct as would justify the submission of the question to the jury under section 1271 of the Code [31 Stat. at L. 1390, chap. 854].

The judgment was. right and must be affirmed, with costs.

Affirmed.

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

Mr. Justice Robb

delivered the opinion of the Court:

• Upon the prior appeal it was ruled, in a carefully prepared opinion by Mr. Justice Van Orsdel, that under the evidence plaintiffs exercised their right to disaffirm the contract within a reasonable time after they became of age. But it is now urged that under the evidence adduced at the second trial, it was the duty of the court to submit to the jury the question whether the plaintiffs, by their conduct, affirmed the contract. To this we cannot assent. The alleged attempted sale by the plaintiffs occurred at about the time they became of age, that is, between August 24th and August 29th. On September 9th, following, the plaintiffs first learned of their rights, whereupon they immediately notified the defendants of the rescission of the contract. It is a general rule that to effect a confirmation of a contract entered into during infancy, the act must have been done with knowledge that the contract was voidable. Irvine v. Irvine, 9 Wall. 617, 19 L. ed. 800; Owen v. Long, 112 Mass. 403; Baker v. Kennett, 54 Mo. 82; Fetrow v. Wiseman, 40 Ind. 148; Steele v. Poe, 79 S. C. 407, 60 S. E. 951; Hatch v. Hatch, 60 Vt. 160, 13 Atl. 791; Trader v. Lowe, 45 Md. 1, This is a reasonable rule, since it cannot be said that an infant intends to affirm a contract when he is in ignorance that affirmation is necessary; that is, when he is in ignorance of his rights. It is for this reason that it generally has been held-that mere acquiescence, though long continued, will not amount to ratification. In the present case, there are no circumstances tending to show that when the plaintiffs are alleged to have attempted to make a sale of the property they had any knowledge that their contract with the defendants was voidable on the ground of infancy. That, therefore, did not amount to such conduct as would justify the submission of the question to the jury under section 1271 of the Code [31 Stat. at L. 1390, chap. 854].

The judgment was. right and must be affirmed, with costs.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

44 App. D.C. 98, 1915 U.S. App. LEXIS 2684, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/manning-v-gannon-cadc-1915.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack