He may still avoid the contract even if he has spent the consideration ; New York Building Loan Banking Co. v. Fisher, 23 App. Div. 363, 48 N. Y. Supp. 152 ; Price v. Fur man, 27 Vt. 268, 65 Am. Dec. 194; Eureka Co. v. Edwards, 71 Ala. 248, 46 Am. Rep. 314 ; Walsh v. Young, 110 Mass. 396; con tra, Johnson v. Ins. Co., 56 Minn. 365, 57 N. W. 934, 59 N. W. 992, 26 R. A. 187, 45 Am. St. Rep. 473 ; L. R. 24 Q. B. 166; but if he still has the consideration in specie he must return it as a prerequisite to a disaffirmance; Dickerson v. Gordon, 52 Hun 614, 5 N. Y. Supp. 310 ; Harvey v. Briggs, 68 Miss. 60, 8 South. 274, 10 L. R. A. 62 ; Craig v. Van Beb ber, 100 Mo. 584, 13 S. W. 906, 18 Am. St. Rep. 569; or, if he has received considera tion for a release, it may be credited by the jury as against recovery, if he sues before his majority ; Worthy v. Oil Mill, 77 S. C. 69, 57 S. E. 634, 11 L. R. A. (N. S.) 690, 12 Ann. Cas. 688, and note. The other party need not be placed in state quo; Dube v. Beaudry, 150 Mass. 448, 23 N. E. 222, 6 L. R. A. 146, 15 Am. St. Rep. 228; Morse v. Ely, 154 Mass. 458, 28 N. E. 577, 26 Am. St. Rep. 263; Dawson v. Helmes, 30 Minn. 107, 14 N. W. 462; Whitcomb v. Joslyn, 51 Vt. 79, 31 Am. Rep. 678. 'An infant has been enjoined from breach of contract ; Mutual Milk & Cream Co. v. Prigge, 112 App. Div. 652, 98 N. Y. Supp. 458 ; [1892] 3 Ch.' 502 ; but these decisions have been criticized as indefensible 20 Harv. L. Rev. 64. The title to chattels purchased by an infant passes to him and his repudiation of the contract does not revest it in the vendor ; Lamkin & Foster v. Le Doux, 101 Me. 581, 64 Atl. 1048, 8 L. R. A. (N. S.)•
104, and note.
The contract cannot be avoided by an adult with whom the infant deals ; Gates v, Davenport, 29 Barb. (N. Y.) 160 ; Johnson v. Rockwell, 12 Ind. 76; Warwick v. Cooper, 5 Sneed (Tenn.) 659 ; Monaghan v. Ins. Co., 53 Mich. 238, 18 N. W. 797 ; Patterson v. Lip pincott, 47 N. J. L. 457, 1 Atl. 506, 54 Am. Rep. 178 ; Towle v. Dresser, 73 Me. 252 ; or by a third person in a collateral proceeding; Doane v. Covel, 56 Me. 527; Beardsley v. Hotchkiss, 96 N. Y. 201; Winchester v. Thay er, 129 Mass. 129. See Thaw v. Ritchie, U. S. 519, 10 Sup. Ct. 1037, 34 L. Ed. 531.
The doctrine of estoppel is inapplicable to infants ; Brown v. McCune, 5 Sand. (N. Y.) 228; Lackman v. Wood, 25 Cal. 147 ; Sewell v. Sewell, 92 Ky. 500, 18 S. W. 162, 36 Am. St. Rep. 606. Even where an infant fraud ulently represented himself as being of full age, he was not estopped from setting up a defence of infancy to a contract entered into under the fraudulent representation ; Merl riam v. Cunningham, 11 Cush. (Mass.) 40 Burley v. Russell, 10 N. H. 184, 34 Am. Dec. 146; Wieland v. Kobick, 110 111. 16, 51 Am.
Rep. 676 ; Alvey v. Reed, 115 Ind. 148, 17 N. E. 265, 7 Am. St. Rep. 418 ; Millsaps v. Estes, 137 N. C. 535, 50 S. E. 227, 70 L. R. A. 170, 107 Am. St. Rep. 496 ; Kirkham v. Wheeler-Osgood Co., 39, Wash. 415, 81 Pac. 869, 4 Ann. Cas. 532; Conrad v. Lane, 26 Minn. 389, 4 N. W. 695, 37 Am. Rep. 412 and note; Alt v. Graff, 65 Minn. 191, 68 N. W. 9; Whitcomb v. Joslyn, 51 Vt. 79, 31 Am. Rep. 678; Carolina Interstate Bldg. & Loan Ass'n v. Black, 119 N. C. 329, 25 S. E. 975 ; Tobin v. Spann, 85 Ark. 556, 109 S. W. 534,