Ragan v. Williams
| Citation | 127 So. 190,220 Ala. 590 |
| Decision Date | 20 March 1930 |
| Docket Number | 7 Div. 940. |
| Parties | RAGAN v. WILLIAMS. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Alabama |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Cherokee County; A. E. Hawkins, Judge.
Action for rent by Sallie Williams against Rupert Ragan. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Transferred from Court of Appeals.
Affirmed.
Hugh Reed, of Center, for appellant.
E. O McCord & Son, of Gadsden, and Irby Keener, of Center, for appellee.
The suit was against an infant for necessaries.
When necessaries are furnished to one who by reason of infancy cannot bind himself by his contract, the law implies an obligation on the part of such person to pay for such "necessaries" out of his own property. It is said that such right and liability is a benefit rather than a disadvantage, if the necessaries furnished are "equal and reasonable"-beneficial"beneficial to him. Smoot v. Ryan, 187 Ala. 396, 65 So. 828. So an infant, like an insane person, has been held liable for necessaries furnished him or to his family suitable to his state or condition in life. 31 C.J. §§ 169, 175; Smoot v Ryan, supra; Waugh v. Emerson, 79 Ala. 295; Flexner v. Dickerson, 72 Ala. 318; Shropshire v Burns, 46 Ala. 108; Commercial Credit Co. v. Ward & Son Auto Co., 215 Ala. 34, 109 So. 574.
What are "necessities" within this rule held to be a relative term, International Text-Book Co. v. Connelly, 206 N.Y. 188, 99 N.E. 722, 42 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1115, and somewhat flexible, Rhodes v. Frazier (Mo. App.) 204 S.W. 547, depending upon social position and situation in life of the infant, as well as his own fortune and that of his parents, International Text-Book Co. v. Connelly, 206 N.Y. 188, 99 N.E. 722, 42 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1115. That is to say, every case stands upon its peculiar facts and reasonable necessities, according to the circumstances of each case; and there is no positive or iron-bound rule by means of which it may be determined what are or what are not necessaries. McKanna et al. v. Charles H. Merry, 61 Ill. 177; Breed v. Judd and another, 1 Gray (Mass.) 455; Englebert v. Troxell et al., 40 Neb. 195, 58 N.W. 852, 26 L. R. A. 177, 42 Am. St. Rep. 665; Crafts v. Carr, 24 R.I. 397, 53 A. 275, 60 L. R. A. 128, 96 Am. St. Rep. 721. Illustrations of the application of the rule in other jurisdictions as to infants in business are: A horse for infant to be used in cultivating a farm by infant, Rainwater v. Durham, 2 Nott & McC. (S. C.) 524, 10 Am. Dec. 637; board of infant's horse used by him in the conduct of his business as a hackman, Merriam v. Cunningham, 11 Cush. (Mass.) 40; articles used in the conduct of a minor's business as a barber. Ryan v. Smith, 165 Mass. 303, 43 N.E. 109. And as to improvements of infants' lands the rule has been applied to labor, material, moneys for taxes, etc.; in society and the home, extended to a bridal outfit and present to the bride, conveyance, servant and livery, mourning apparel, education and service of an attorney. 31 C.J. 1078. And to things for bodily need-food, support and maintenance, clothing, medicine and medical attention, and lodging. The rule as to lodging as a necessity for an infant has been declared in Connecticut, Missouri, New York, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, and in New England; so much for the general authorities.
The general rules applied in this state as to contracts by minors are thus stated by Mr. Justice Somerville in Plexner & Lichten v. Dickerson, 72 Ala. 318, 322, as follows:
And in Sims v. Gunter, 201 Ala. 286, 287, 78 So. 62, 63, the text from Craig v. Van Bebber, 100 Mo. 584, 13 S.W. 906, 18 Am. St. Rep. 569, is quoted with approval. It is as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wiggins Estate Co. v. Jeffery
...rented. We are thus forced to a more careful consideration of taxes as a necessary of an infant than has been done by this court in Ragan v. Williams, supra. The general decisions leases and mortgages recognize a distinction between infant's home or homestead and general properties on which......
-
Merrick v. Stephens
...S.W. 476, and Newberry v. Johnson, Tex.Civ.App., 274 S.W. 667; Lindsey v. Hubbard, 74 S.Dak. 114, 49 N.W.2d 299; Ragan v. Williams, 220 Ala. 590, 127 So. 190, 68 A.L.R. 1182; State ex rel. Myers v. Hodge, 129 W.Va. 820, 42 S.E.2d 23. 16 We believe that under the factual situation in this ca......
-
Penney v. Pritchard & McCall
...246 Ala. 183, 19 So.2d 769. There are many goods and services properly termed necessaries under that statute. Ragan v. Williams, 220 Ala. 590, 127 So. 190, 68 A.L.R. 1182; Flexner v. Dickerson, 72 Ala. Section 284, Buswell on Insanity is as follows: 'Costs and counsel fees reasonably incurr......
-
Cutts v. American United Life Ins. Co.
... ... Allen v. Molton, Allen & Williams Realty Co., 495 So.2d 27 (Ala.1986); Johnson v. Haynie, 414 So.2d 946 (Ala.1982); Brown v. Parnell, 386 So.2d 1137 (Ala.1980); S.S. Kresge Co. v ... ...