Stern v. Meikleham
This text of 10 N.Y.S. 216 (Stern v. Meikleham) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
This action was prematurely brought. The contract was not for necessaries, and therefore was not obligator)'. It was not clearly to the disadvantage of the infant, and therefore was not void. It was of an uncertain nature as to benefit or prejudice, and therefore was voidable. 2 Kent, Comm. 236; Chapin v. Shafer, 49 N. Y. 407; Henry v. Root, 33 N. Y. 526; Sparman v. Keim, 83 N. Y. 245. But, while the defendant’s infancy continued, he was incapable of affirming or disaffirming it. He has bis election after becoming of age. Beardsley v. Hotchkiss, 96 N. Y. 201, 211; Walsh v. Powers, 43 N. Y. 23, and eases supra. The defendant was still an infant when this action was tried. J udgment reversed, with costs. All concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
10 N.Y.S. 216, 63 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 475, 31 N.Y. St. Rep. 608, 56 Hun 475, 1890 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2042, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stern-v-meikleham-nysupct-1890.