Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 32.djvu/379

343 PROBLEMS IN PROBATE AND ADMINISTRATION 343 logic, allow him to avoid the transfer at any time before the statute of limitations has run after he has attained full age/^^ unless there are circumstances showing estoppel, promissory estoppel, or change V. Gaslin, 20 Neb. 347, 30 N. W. 274 (1886); Englebert v. Troxell, 40 Neb. 195, 58 N. W. 852 (1894); Criswell v. Criswell, 163 N. W. 302 (Neb.) (1917); Weeks v. Wilkins, 134 N. C. 516, 47 S. E. 24 (1904); Gaskins v. Allen, 137 N. C. 426, 49 S. E. 919 (1905); Dolph V. Hand, 156 Pa. 91, 27 Atl. 114 (1893); Scott v. Buchanan, 11 Humph. (Tenn.) 468 (1850); Bingham v. Barley, 55 Tex. 281 (1881); Ferguson v. Houston Ry. Co., 73 Tex. 344, II S. W. 347 (1889); Bigelow v. Kinney, 3 Vt. 353 (1830); Richardson -u. Boright, 9 Vt. 368 (1837); Washington, Codes & Stats. (1915), § 5293; Featherston V. McDonell, 15 U. C. C. P. 162 (1865); Foley v. Canada Loan Co., 4 Ont. 38 (1883). The same rule was applied to a transfer of personalty by an infant. Hastings v. DoUarhide, 24 Cal. 195 (1864); Iowa, Code (1897), § 3189; Gannon v. Manning, 42 App. D. C. 206 (1914); Baker v. Kennett, 54 Mo. 82 (1873); Summers v. Wilson, 2 Cold. (Tenn.) 469 (1865); Washington, Code & Stats. (1915), § 5293. See Parsons V. Teller, 188 N. Y. 318, 326, 80 N. E. 930 (1907); Woolridge v. Lavoie, 104 Atl. 346 (N. H.) (1918). And to the executory contract of a minor. Johnson v. Storie, 32 Neb. 610, 49 N. W. 371 (1891) (surety on note); Chandler v. Jones, 173 N. C. 427, 92 S. E. 145 (1917). See DarHngton v. Hamilton Bank, 116 N. Y. Supp. 678 (1909) note; Hohnes v. Blogg, 8 Taimt. 35 (181 7); Edwards v. Carter, [1893] A. C. 360; Carnell v. Harrison, [1916] i Ch. 328. 166 Wells V. Seixas, 24 Fed. 82 (1885); Gilkinson ». Miller, 74 Fed. 131 (1896); Tucker V. Moreland, 10 Pet. (U. S.) 58, 75 (1836) (semble); Irvine v. Irvine, 9 Wall. (U. S.) 617 (1869); Sims V. Everhardt, 102 U. S. 300 (1880); McCarthy v. Nicrosi, 72 Ala. 332 (1882) (but see Schaffer v. Lauretta, 57 Ala. 14 (1876)); Putnal v. Walker, 61 Fla. 720, 55 So. 844 (191 1); Syck v. Hellier, 140 Ky. 388, 131 S. W. 30 (1910). Compare Hoflfert V. Miller, 86 Ky. 572, 6 S. W. 447 (1888). But see Justice v. Justice, 170 Ky. 423, 426, 186 S. W. 148 (1916); Boody V. McKenney, 23 Me. 517, 523, 524 (1844) (semble) -yDsLvis v. Dudley, 70 Me. 236 (1879); Prout v. Wiley, 28 Mich. 164 (1873); Donovan v. Ward, 100 Mich. 601, 59 N. W. 254 (1894); Wallace v. Latham, 52 Miss. 291 (1876); Allen V. Poole, 54 Miss. 323 (1877); Shipp v. McKee, 80 Miss. 741, 31 So. 197 (1902) (but see Thompson v. Strickland, 52 Miss. 574 (1876)); Brantley v. Wolf, 60 Miss. 420 (1882); Peterson v. Laik, 24 Mo. 541 (1857); Thomas v. PuUis, 56 Mo. 211 (1874); Lacy V. Pixler, 120 Mo. 383, 25 S. W. 206 (1894); Linville v. Greer, 165 Mo. 380, 65 S. W. 579 (1901); Parrish i>. Treadway, 267 Mo. 91, 183 S. W. 580 (1916); Jackson 5. Carpenter, 11 Johns. (N. Y.) 539, 542 (1814); Voorhiesf. Voorhies, 24 Barb. (N. Y.) 150 (1857); Eagan v. ScuUy, 51 N. Y. Supp. 680 (1898), aff'd 173 N. Y. 581, 65 N. E. 1116 (1902); Green v. Green, 69 N. Y. 553 (1877) (but see Jones v. Butler, 30 Barb. 641 (1859)); Drake v. Ramsay, 5 Ohio, 252 (1831). Cresinger v. Welch, 15 Ohio, 156 (1846); Lanning v. Brown, 84 Ohio St. 385 (191 1); Wilson v. Branch, 77 Va. 65 (1883); Birch V. Linton, 78 Va. 584 (1884); Gillespie v. Bailey, 12 W. Va. 70 (1877). The same rule was applied in the case of a transfer of personalty by a minor. Vaughan v. Parr, 20 Ark. 600 (1859); Hill v. Nelms, 86 Ala. 442, 5 So. 796 (1888). See Boody v. McKenney, 23 Me. 517, 525 (1884). And the same is true of an infant's executory contract. Buzzell v. Bennett, 2 Cal. loi (1852); Magee v. Welsh, 18 Cal. 155 (1861); Tyler v. Gallop, 68 Mich. 185, 35 N. W. 902 (1888); Nichols Co. v. Snyder, 78 Minn. 502, 81 N. W. 516 (1900); Tupp v. Pederson, 78 Minn. 524, 81 N. W. 1103 (1900); New Hampshire Ins. Co. v. Noyes, 32 N. H. 345 (1855); International Text Book Co. V. Connelly, 206 N. Y. 188, 99 N. E. 722 (1912).