Roeper v. Danese

1 Citing case

  1. Olson v. Veum

    222 N.W. 233 (Wis. 1928)   Cited 3 times
    In Olson a minor, with his brother, an adult, purchased farm implements and materials, paying by signing notes payable at a future date.

    31 Corp. Jur. p. 1069; 14 Ruling Case Law, p. 238. The authorities are clear that when it is shown, as it is here, that the infant cannot make restitution, then his absolute right to disaffirm is not to be questioned ( MacGreal v. Taylor, 167 U. S. 688, 700, 17 Sup. Ct. 961; Blue Jacket v. Ewert, 265 Fed. 823, 830; Roeper v. Danese (Iowa), 221 N. W. 506); and he may assert the defense without restitution even in an action by a receiver in bankruptcy seeking to recover an unlawful preference. Lowell v. Brown, 280 Fed. 193, 198. Under well established doctrine, therefore, the defendant was entitled to have his plea of infancy as to the note in question sustained.