Mauldin v. Southern Shorthand & Bus. Univ.

• Decision Date: 12 November 1906
• Citation: 126 Ga. 681,55 S.E. 922
• Parties: MAULDIN . v. SOUTHERN SHORTHAND & BUSINESS UNIVERSITY
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

55 S.E. 922

126 Ga. 681

MAULDIN .

v.SOUTHERN SHORTHAND & BUSINESS UNIVERSITY

Supreme Court of Georgia.

Nov. 12, 1906.

Infants—Contracts—Necessaries.

In order to determine the question whether or not the contract of an infant for a course in stenography was a contract for necessaries, in the sense in which the term "necessaries" is used to render the contract binding upon such infant, the evidence in the case should show the state, degree, and condition in life in which the infant is whose contract is under consideration; and it should also affirmatively appear that the parents or guardian of such infant failed or refused to furnish the alleged necessary. The evidence in this case, upon which this issue was submitted to the jury, failed to show these particular facts and circumstances. There being, therefore, nothing in the evidence submitted upon which the jury in the justice's court could predicate a verdict finding that the contract was for necessaries, it was error for the superior court judge to deny the writ of certiorari.

[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, sea Cent. Dig. vol. 27, Infants, § 114.]

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Error from Superior Court, Fulton County; J. T. Pendleton, Judge.

Action by Dora Mauldin against the Southern Shorthand & Business University. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error. Reversed.

Payne, Jone & Payne, for plaintiff in error.

H. A. Etheridge and Etheridge, Boykin & Etheridge, for defendant In error.

BECK, J. Mauldin sued the Southern Shorthand & Business University in a justice's court for $35 paid to the defendant under an alleged voidable contract The case was appealed to a jury In the justice's court and tried upon the following agreed statement of facts: On January 5, 1905, plaintiff, a minor, in pursuance of a contract made with defendant, entered upon a three months' course of stenography, for which defendant was paid by the plaintiff the sum of $35, giving a receipt therefor to plaintiff in her own name. On January 10, 1905, plaintiff was compelled to abandon said course in stenography, and thereupon demanded the return of said $35, which was refused. In addition to this agreed statement of facts, the defendant introduced a witness who testified that "said $35 was paid by the uncle of plaintiff, and that the receipt was made out in her name, In accordance with the custom of the school." It was agreed by counsel for both parties to submit the cause to the jury upon the issue whether or not, under all the facts and circumstances in the case, the contract entered into between said parties was a contract for necessaries, and that the verdict should depend upon the determination of said issue. The jury returned a verdict for the defendant The plaintiff presented to the judge of the superior court her petition for the writ of certiorari. Sanction of the same was refused, and the plaintiff excepted.

This case was submitted to the jury In the justice's court upon an agreed statement of facts, and under an agreement still further limiting the jury in their field of Investigation. The Issue submitted to the jury was narrowed down to the question whether or not, under all the-facts and circumstances in the case, the contract entered into between the parties for a course in stenography was a contract for necessaries; the verdict depending upon the determination of said issue. Evidently the jury found that the question submitted should be answered in the affirmative, and returned a verdict for the defendant. Under our law, the contract was void, being a contract of an Infant, unless It was one for...