Ohio Court of Appeals, 1929

Hoffman v. Edson Co.

Hoffman v. Edson Co.
Ohio Court of Appeals · Decided May 20, 1929 · Richards, Lloyd, Williams
173 N.E. 307; 37 Ohio App. 262; 7 Ohio Law. Abs. 388; 1929 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 1161; 1929 Ohio App. LEXIS 485 (North Eastern Reporter)

Hoffman v. Edson Co.

Opinion of the Court

RICHARDS, J.

In Spencer vs. Collins, et al., 156 California, 296, it was held that notice of disaffirmance need only be given to the party with whom the contract was made and need not be given to an assignee of the contract. See also Downing vs. Stone, 47 Mo. App., 144.

An infant, either before or within a reasonalbe time after becoming of age may disaffirm a contract not for necessaries. In the instant case, on electing to disaffirm, he caused the property to be returned, and this court is of the opinion that he was not required to do any more than that. While the application for credit signed by Hoffman gives his age as twenty four years, his testimony that he stated his age as twenty years and that the seller filled in the age as twenty four years is uncontradicted.

On the evidence contained in the bill of exceptions we think the trial court was in error in holding that there was no defense to the merits of the case, and for this reason the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings.

Williams and Lloyd, JJ, concur.

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