Woolston v. King
This text of 3 N.J.L. 1050 (Woolston v. King) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of New Jersey primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Contracts for the benefit of infants are not void; and at most, are voidable. And as the infant performed his part, Woolston ought to have performed his.
One of the witnesses said, that Woolston said, that there was an indenture, on which it was contended that the indenture ought to have been produced.
The action is founded on the agreement, not on an indenture. Woolston’s saying [f] that there was an indenture, did not prove the fact. His declaration could not make evidence for him.
Judgment affirmed.
Brown, for plaintiff.
Cited is Voorhees v. Wait, 3 Gr. 343.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
3 N.J.L. 1050, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/woolston-v-king-nj-1813.