Green v. . Green
Cases that cite this one
47 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Rice v. Butler (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1898)
- Shields v. Gross (N.Y. 1983)
- Adamowski v. Curtiss-Wright Flying Service, Inc. (Mass. 1938)
- Joseph v. Schatzkin (N.Y. 1932)
- Icovino v. Haymes (City of New York Municipal Court 1948)
- Adamowski v. Curtis-Wright Flying Service, Inc. (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div. 1936)
- Levenberg v. Ludington (New York County Courts 1934)
- Hecker-Jones-Jewell Milling Co. v. Bernstein (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York 1932)
- Shutter v. Fudge (Conn. 1928)
- Wyatt v. Lortscher (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1926)
- Nathan v. Herman N. Karp, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1925)
- Casey v. . Kastel (N.Y. 1924)
- McCarthy v. Bowling Green Storage & Van Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1918)
- Newton v. . Evers (N.Y. 1915)
- Gannon v. Manning (D.C. 1914)
- Ex parte McFerren (Ala. 1913)
- Putnal v. Walker (Fla. 1911)
- O'Donohue v. Smith (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1909)
- Seed v. Jennings (Or. 1905)
- Hickey v. Dixon (New York Supreme Court 1903)
- Koerner v. Wilkinson (Mo. Ct. App. 1902)
- Bullock v. Sprowls (Tex. 1899)
- O'Rourke v. Hall (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1899)
- Featherstone v. Betlejewski (Ill. App. Ct. 1898)
- Eagan v. Scully (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1898)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
The important question in this case is whether it was necessary for the defendant to restore the consideration received for the transfer of the land to the plaintiff to entitle him to rescind the contract. The defendant is a son of the plaintiff. He conveyed to the plaintiff the premises in question when under the age of twenty-one years, for which he received the sum of $400. It appeared affirmatively that the son had used up, lost, or squandered the money before he became of age, and had no part of it, nor any other property except the land at the time of arriving at age. After a careful examination of the authorities and the conflicting opinions below, we are inclined to concur with the opinion of Gilbert, J., in affirmance of the judgment. We do not deem it profitable to review the authorities upon the question, and do not intend to extend our decision beyond the principal facts involved in this case.
There are expressions of judges, and general rules laid clown by text writers, and some cases which seem to favor the doctrine contended for by the appellant, but in nearly all of them there is a manifest distinction in the facts. The weight of authority is to the contrary effect. (10 Peters U. S., 58, 74; 97 Mass., 508; 6 Gray, 279; 27 Vt., 268; 100 Mass.,- 174.) These and like authorities, we think, accord with the general principles of the law for the protection of infants. The right to repudiate is based upon the incapacity of the infant to contract, and that incapacity applies as well to the avails as to the property itself, and when the avails of the property are improvidently spent or lost by speculation or otherwise during minority, the infant should not be held responsible for an inability to restore them. ' To do so would operate as a serious restriction upon the right of an infant to avoid his contract, and in many cases would destroy the right altogether. A person purchasing real estate of an infant, knowing the fact, and especially the father, must and ought to take the risk of the avoidance of the contract by the infant after arriving at maturity. The right to rescind is a legal right established for the protection of the infant, *557 ancl to make it dependent upon performing an impossibility, which impossibility has resulted from acts which the law presumes him incapable of performing, would tend to impair the right and withdraw the protection. Both upon authority and principle we think a restoration of the consideration could not be exacted as a condition to a rescission on the part of the defendant.
More acquiescence for three years after arriving at age without any affirmative act was not a ratification. (11 J. R., 539; 14 id., 124; 23 Maine R., 517.) The entry made by the defendant in this case for the purpose of disaffirming the contract with notice of such intention was sufficient to entitle him to recover. (17 Wend., 120.)
The judgment must be affirmed.
All concur; Andrews, J., absent.
Judgment affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.