If an infant is supplied with necessaries by his parents or in some other way, so that it cannot be said that he is in need of the articles furnished him, although they may be necessaries in other cases, it can not be said that they are necessaries for such particular infant, and he is therefore not liable for them. The rule of law making the infant responsible for necessaries exists for his benefit, so as to enable him to live, and will only be enforced so far as to attain its object. When, therefore, a stranger furnishes articles which are ordinarily necessaries of life to an infant, he must decide for himself at his peril whether the infant is supplied with such articles from some other source. In case an infant is under guardianship, it is primarily the duty of the guardian to supply him with necessaries; should the guardian fail to do so, a third person may do so and hold the infant's estate for their value. An infant is liable for money paid by a third person at his request for necessaries used by such infant. Whether an infant is liable for money borrowed which he used in the purchase of necessaries has been decided by the courts in the affirmative and also in the negative.

What are necessaries, is a question of law, but what they are in a particular case is a question of fact. What may be necessaries for one person may not be for another; this depends upon the nature of the article supplied to the infant, his need for it, his wealth, and his general station in life. Generally, in order to be a necessary, it must supply some personal want of the infant, such as food, clothing, education, medicine, etc. Therefore anything for the infant's benefit which does not fill a personal want he is not responsible for; for instance, repairs made to his buildings, or fire insurance thereon, services rendered by an attorney in regard to property, he cannot be held for. The proper way of enforcing such a liability is to have the infant put under guardianship, and have him contract for them. An infant conducting business cannot be held for any merchandise sold to him, or for any liability on contract created in conducting such business. Articles of ornament are generally not necessaries, although they might be to one of means and occupying a position in society. A watch and chain of reasonable value is generally considered a necessary, if used by one old enough to use them.

Education consistent with the wealth, intelligence, and station in life of an infant, is a necessary. "It has been ruled that an infant may be liable for schooling, and if it becomes necessary to determine how much schooling is necessary, then you must inquire what situation in life he is required to fill. A knowledge of the learned languages may be necessary for one, a mere knowledge of reading and writing may be sufficient for another."

A bicycle bought by the average infant would not be a necessary. A diamond pin might be reasonably nesessary for an infant worth a million dollars, whereas it would not be for one of moderate means: the same might be said of a riding horse or expensive clothing. The question in each case is whether the articles furnished to the infant were resonably necessary for his personal use for one in his station and condition in life. "From the earliest time down to the present the word "necessaries" was not confined in its strict sense to such articles as were necessary to the support of life but extended to articles fit to maintain the particular person in the state, station and degree in life in which he is.'

Voidable contracts.-Contracts of infants, except as stated, and except such as may be authorized by statute, are voidable during the infant's minority or after arriving at age. There are a few contracts which most courts hold cannot be avoided until majority is reached, the chief of which is a conveyance of real estate. The fact that a person may be near the age of twenty-one, or possess the intelligence of an adult, makes no difference, since the law has set the limit arbitrarily at the age of twenty-one. Thus, a mortgage, a lease, a partnership agreement, promissory notes, sales of personal property, purchases of stock, contracts of suretyship, compromises, etc, may be avoided. An infant wife is not bound by a release of dower. An infant's contract of hire may be avoided by him and he may recover what his services were reasonably worth, irrespective of the contract.

The right of avoiding contracts is given infants by law for their protection, and although the infant's exercise of the option to do so may sometimes work a hardship on others, they might have avoided it by not contracting with an infant. The infant may usually exercise the right before or after arriving at age, and whether the contract has been executed by him or not, and he may do so as to property he has parted

with whether it is still in the hands of the party with whom he dealt or transferred by him to somé innocent purchaser. If the infant avoids the title, no title would vest in the subsequent purchaser; and he therefore cannot hold the property against the infant.

The privilege of avoiding a contract is personal to the infant, and his heirs and personal representatives. A third person cannot avoid such a contract by setting up the infancy of the maker. The party who contracts with an infant, is, of course, always bound, and cannot plead the other's infancy as cause for non-performance.

The right of avoiding a contract is exercised by repudiating it and instituting suit to recover back what has been parted with, if necessary. If the infant avoids it, he must return everything he has received under the contract, if he is in a position to do so. If he has received money or other property, and has spent it or it has passed out of his hands, he may disaffirm and need not restore what he has received. It is only in such cases where he is in a position to restore the other party to his original position that the law requires him to do so. If the infant disaffirms, but refuses to deliver the property received by him, it may be obtained from him by legal process. Of course, he cannot be held liable for damage to the property, or for depreciation in value, not caused by his wilfull act. An infant may avoid an executory contract by failing to perform. If he disaffirms after becoming of age, he must do so within a reasonable time; otherwise he will be held to have affirmed the contract. "Another condition is that if he retains any part of the consideration, he must return the same before he will be allowed to assert the invalidity of his contract." The question of what constitutes reasonable time in such cases depends upon the circumstances of each case. Usually contracts under which the infant claims or holds nothing need not be disaffirmed by him; for instance, in case he gives a note for money during minority, which he has spent during that time, he would not need to disaffirm the note, but it would take an affirmative act on his part to make the note good. But where he holds any benefit under the contract after arriving at age, or wishes to recover property from the other party to the contract, he must disaffirm within a reasonable time. The infant cannot disaffirm in

part and affirm in part; the whole contract must be affirmed or disaffirmed. This is for the reason that one cannot to the detriment of another occupy inconsistent positions.

Affirmance: As it is optional with an infant to stand by his contract or avoid it, except in the cases mentioned, he may on coming of age, by his acts and conduct affirm such a contract, and make it binding upon himself. The contract would then stand in the same way as though he had made it after arriving at majority. The affirmance may be made by expressly agreeing to be bound by the contract, or by conduct, or in cases where he retains something after majority received under a contract, by failing to disaffirm within a reasonable time. If the infant does any act which is inconsistent with a disaffirmance of the contract, thereby recognizing its existence, he will be held to have affirmed it. Thus, if an infant should continue to use real or personal property after arriving at majority, he would thereby affirm a contract for its purchase made during minority. "Any act or declaration of an infant after arriving at his majority, which recognizes the existence of a promise made by him, is a ratification of it."

Liability for torts.-Infants are liable for their torts. A tort is a breach of duty imposed by law, for which an action for damages may be maintained. The duty in such cases arises independently of contract and is established by the law and is exacted from infants as well as adults. The question of age in such cases makes no difference, except in such cases where an intent is necessary, and the infant be not of sufficient age to form it. There is a common impression that parents are liable for the wrongful acts of their children, but this is not the law. Parents are no more liable for the torts of their children than strangers. Of course if it can be shown that the parent by his direct act or negligence causes a child to comit a tort, the parent would be liable.

It has been decided that an infant is liable for damages for committing an assault and battery, for creating a nuisance, for trespass, for conversion, etc. It has been decided in Wisconsin that a seven year old child was liable in an action for trespass for destroying a flower bed; also, that a boy, thirteen years old, who had a loaded revolver, and while playing "cowboy" with another, wounded him, was liable in damages.

An infant is also liable for fraud although he cannot be held liable on contracts which have been entered into through his fraud. Thus, an infant cannot be held on a contract although he represents himself to be of age, and the party contracting with him believes him. Sometimes an infant may be responsible for a tort which grows out of a contract, but he cannot be held in tort when its effect would be to practically hold him to the contract. For instance, if an infant hires a horse and from lack of experience injures the horse in overdriving it, he cannot be held for the damage, as it is merely a breach of contract. But if he wilfully injures the animal, or uses him for a different purpose from that for which he was hired, the infant is acting outside of the scope of the contract and is liable in tort for his wrong. If an infant should borrow an article and fail to return it, he would be liable for a conversion of it, unless it had been lost without his neglect.

Emancipation.-An infant, on arriving at age, is absolved from parental control. During the minority of children, in consideration of the duty to maintain them, parents are given the right to their earnings during that period. This duty and right belong primarily to the father. At his death the courts generally hold that this duty and right devolve upon the mother. A parent may by agreement emancipate a minor child during all or part of his minority, and thus entitle him to control his own earnings during such time. This agreement may be express or may be implied from conduct or circumstances. It has been decided in Wisconsin that "the services of a minor belong ordinarily to the father. The father may, by agreement with his minor child, relinquish this right to him and authorize those who employ him to pay him his wages, and he will then have no right to demand those wages either from the employer or the child." One who employs a minor not emancipated has no right to pay wages to such minor, unless he is authorized by the parent to do so. When a minor is emancipated on condition that he maintain himself, he will of course be liable on his contracts for necessaries. The emancipation may be revoked by the parent at any time before the child attains majority, although made for the full term of minority, and thereafter the parent will be entitled to the minor's earnings. Such a revocation however cannot effect money or other property which the