Superior Court of Delaware, 1850

Walker's Adm'r. v. Chambers

Superior Court of Delaware · Decided July 5, 1850 · Court

5 Del. 311

Counsel

Mr. Bayard , objected to proof of such contract, even though ratified, as against policy. The Court admitted the evidence., Mr. Whiteley, for defendant,, Mr. Bayard , Mr. Bayard, for plaintiff., Mr. Whiteley, for defendant.

Opinion of the Court

The Court, to the jury:

The contract under which the plaintiff began his apprenticeship with Walker, does not hind him after full age. He was a minor, incapable of contracting. The mother had no power to bind him by any contract reaching beyond his full age. Yet such a contract is capable of ratification and may be made valid, by the ratification of the party, after he comes of age.

There are some contracts made with infants, which are incapable of ratification, because they are against public policy; such are contracts for goods sold a minor to trade on during his minority. Others being for the minor’s benefit may be confirmed by him.

We think this contract not such as is incapable of confirmation, because of any conflict with public policy. Such contracts as this *312 may be for the minor’s benefit; and therefore, may bé ratified and confirmed by him. But such ratification must be express, and not by mere implication; and must be made with full knowledge of the party’s rights. (2 Greenl. Ev., 293, § 376.)

Mr. Bayard, for plaintiff. Mr. Whiteley, for defendant.

The plaintiff had a verdict.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.