Wallace & Christopher v. Morss

The only question of moment is, whether an infant be chargeable by action for a tort in obtaining goods fraudulently, with an intention not to pay for them. We think he is, both on principle and authority. (Badger v. *393Phinney, 15 Mass. Rep. 359; Homer v. Thwing, 3 Pick. 492; Cary v. Hotailing, 1 Hill, 311; Olmsted v. The Same, id. 317; The People v. Kendall, 25 Wend, 399.)

Motion denied.