Whitcomb v. Joslyn

Supreme Court of Vermont

Whitcomb v. Joslyn

51 Vt. 79

CourtSupreme Court of Vermont

DecidedAugust 15, 1878

StatusPublished

Cited by15 cases

This text of 51 Vt. 79 (Whitcomb v. Joslyn) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Vermont primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Whitcomb v. Joslyn, 51 Vt. 79 (Vt. 1878).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Dunton, J.

I. It is not controverted that all contracts entered into by an infant, except for necessaries, can be disaffirmed by him, and, if executed, the money paid, or other property delivered thereon by him, recovered back, if he restore to the other party what he received therefor. In the case at bar, the defendant took possession of the wagon by virtue of a lien reserved thereon by him, so that, by his own act, the property sold by him to the plaintiff went back into his, the defendant’s, possession. This left nothing for the plaintiff to do to entitle him to the money paid by him towards the wagon but to disaffirm the contract. This he did ; and his right of recovery is not affected by the fact that the wagon depreciated in value while in his possession by reason of use or otherwise. The plaintiff is no more liable for the use of the wagon than for its agreed price ; neither the wagon, nor the use of the same, by anything appearing in the case, can be claimed to be necessaries, for which he would be liable. Price v. Furman, 27 Vt. 268.

II. Does the fact that the plaintiff, at the time he traded for the wagon, falsely represented to the defendant that he was of age, affect his right of recovery in this case ? We think not. To hold that he is estopped by such representations from avoiding the contract by asserting his infancy, would be an exception to the law governing this class of cases. Such representations cannot be of any greater force to bind the plaintiff than the contract itself; but whether the plaintiff would be liable to the defendant for the deceit, in an action ex delicto, is a question we have no occasion to consider or decide. In our opinion, the false representations complained of do not make the contract any more binding than it, otherwise would be. Burley v. Russell, 10 N. H. 184; Fitts v. Hall, 9 N. H. 441; Schoul. Dorn. Rel. 567.

Judgment affirmed.

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

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Dunton, J.

I. It is not controverted that all contracts entered into by an infant, except for necessaries, can be disaffirmed by him, and, if executed, the money paid, or other property delivered thereon by him, recovered back, if he restore to the other party what he received therefor. In the case at bar, the defendant took possession of the wagon by virtue of a lien reserved thereon by him, so that, by his own act, the property sold by him to the plaintiff went back into his, the defendant’s, possession. This left nothing for the plaintiff to do to entitle him to the money paid by him towards the wagon but to disaffirm the contract. This he did ; and his right of recovery is not affected by the fact that the wagon depreciated in value while in his possession by reason of use or otherwise. The plaintiff is no more liable for the use of the wagon than for its agreed price ; neither the wagon, nor the use of the same, by anything appearing in the case, can be claimed to be necessaries, for which he would be liable. Price v. Furman, 27 Vt. 268.

II. Does the fact that the plaintiff, at the time he traded for the wagon, falsely represented to the defendant that he was of age, affect his right of recovery in this case ? We think not. To hold that he is estopped by such representations from avoiding the contract by asserting his infancy, would be an exception to the law governing this class of cases. Such representations cannot be of any greater force to bind the plaintiff than the contract itself; but whether the plaintiff would be liable to the defendant for the deceit, in an action ex delicto, is a question we have no occasion to consider or decide. In our opinion, the false representations complained of do not make the contract any more binding than it, otherwise would be. Burley v. Russell, 10 N. H. 184; Fitts v. Hall, 9 N. H. 441; Schoul. Dorn. Rel. 567.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

51 Vt. 79, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/whitcomb-v-joslyn-vt-1878.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack