wrong of which he may be guilty. Thus, if you are in New York and enter into a contract there, it will be presumed by the Courts, should any litigation arise concerning it, that you were cognizant of the laws of New York and framed the contract in accordance with them, even though they be directly contrary to those of your own state on the same subject.

As a matter of fact, very few people, except those who have made them a special study, do know many of the laws of their own state. The reason of this rule, which at first may appear too severe, is easy to see, however, for if ignorance were an excuse, fraud would multiply indefinitely in all the relations of life, since every dishonest man who wished to avoid his contracts, would plead ignorance of the laws by which they were governed, and the same plea could be successfully made in defence of dangerous criminals from other states or countries.

As to Law of Another Country.

Mistaking the law of another country or state than that wherein the contract is made and is to be enforced, may invalidate it, as such a mistake is held to be only one of fact, no state acknowledging the laws of foreign states as law within its own borders, but only as matters of fact, to be proved by evidence like other facts. (Each of the United States is foreign to all the others, in this sense of the term.)

As to Private Rights.

So with certain private rights concerning one's own personal legal liabilities, in one's own state; ignorance of them may invalidate a contract, being only a mistake of fact; but these cases are too rare to consider

further here. The main fact, however, should always be borne in mind, that one cannot plead ignorance of the law to avoid the legal results and liabilities of his contracts, or of any breach of the criminal laws.-[In rare cases, a Court of Equity will annul, or alter, a contract made under a mistake of law.]

CHAPTER V.

COMPETENCY OF PARTIES TO A CONTRACT.

Infants or Minors-Age of Majority-Infants' Voidable Contracts Giving Credit or Loaning Money to Infant-Labor Performed by or for Infant-Who May Set Up Defence of Infancy-May Ratify Voidable Contracts at Majority-Emancipation of an Infant-Infants' Binding Contracts-Necessaries or Luxuries-Marriage and Promise to Marry-Infants' Responsibility for Torts and Crimes-Competency of Married Women to Contract..

In order to give such an assent to a contract as will be binding, the parties to it must be legally competent to contract. A child cannot often bind himself, nor can an insane or intoxicated person. Of course, it is easy to see that no intelligent assent can be given by one whose mind is disordered, or who has not arrived at years of discretion.

Infants or Minors.

It has been found necessary to establish strict rules as to exemptions from contractual liability, and all possible efforts have been exerted for centuries past to make these rules as just and equitable as possible. It is true that many young people of eighteen or twenty years of age are quite capable of business dealings, and do, in point of fact, provide entirely for

themselves. But it was found advisable, long ago, ⚫ and the rule has never been altered-except in some states in regard to girls-, to make twenty-one years the age at which one should be legally capable of binding himself by contracts, and until that age is attained, fathers of children are bound to maintain. them in a reasonable manner, if pecuniarily able.

The exact time at which majority is attained, is at the beginning of the day preceding one's twenty-first birthday, fractions of a day being disregarded in law. In most states the age of majority is the same for both sexes, but in a number of others, Vermont, Maryland, Ohio and Illinois among them, girls are of age at eighteen, and in a few, girls attain their majority by marriage, even if they marry before they become eighteen. [See Abstracts, Title "Age of Majority."] Until legally of age, all persons are infants in the eye of the law, and are so termed in legal works.

Infants' Voidable Contracts.

As a general rule, contracts made by infants are not absolutely void, but only voidable. That is, they are binding upon the infant unless he avoids or disclaims them in a proper manner, either during his minority or within a reasonable time thereafter.

If an infant purchases something not at all necessary he may rescind the contract, tender back the article which he has bought, and demand his money.

If the thing thus returned is in as good condition as when he received it, there is little doubt that he can regain his money. It has sometimes been held that he can recover the purchase money when the article returned is injured, or even when it has been entirely used up or destroyed. But the general rule prob

ably is, that when the infant has received a fair equivalent for his money, even if the article bought was not a necessity, he cannot recover the money back.

If, on the contrary, an infant buys an article, not a necessary, and credit is given him for it, he may defend successfully any suit brought against him to recover its price. The seller is bound to know whether the party to whom he gives credit is an adult or a minor, and if he trusts one of whose age he has no knowledge, he does it at his own risk; but if he sells for cash, he is not bound to exercise the same degree of caution. If one loans money to an infant, even though it be to buy necessaries, the debt may be avoided by the infant, and the creditor cannot compel payment. But if, instead of loaning the money directly to the infant, one goes to a store; boardinghouse or any vendor of necessaries, and orders certain supplies of food, clothing, shelter or other necessaries to be furnished to the infant, and pays for them, such payment constitutes a valid debt against the infant, which he may be compelled to pay, providing, of course, that he has accepted such supplies and profited by them.

If an infant sells property of his own, he may recover it by an action at law from the purchaser, and he may recover it even from a third person to whom it has been sold in turn. The purchase money paid the infant, cannot generally be recovered from him in such a case.

If the contract be for his labor, the infant may sue and recover a reasonable sum for the work he has done, even if he has not worked the entire time agreed upon, thus differing, it will be observed, from the case of an adult. The infant is not bound by his express