PARTIES. Those who take part in the performance of an act, as, making a con tract, carrying on an action. Parties in law may be said to be those united in interest in the performance of an act ; it may then be composed of one or more persons. The term includes every party to an act. It is also used to denote all the individual, separate persons engaged in the act,—in which sense, however, a corporation may be a party.
In Contracts. Those persons who engage themselves to do or not to do the matters and things contained in an agreement.
In general, all persons may be parties to contracts. But no person can contract with himself in a different capacity, as there must be an agreement of minds; 2 Bro. C. C. 400; Michoud v. Girod, 4 How. (U. S.) 503, 11 L. Ed. 1076; Gorham's Adm'r v. Meacham's Adm'r, 63 Vt. 231, 22 Atl. 572, 13 L. R. A. 676.
Aliens were under greater disabilities at common law with reference to real than to personal property; 7 Co. 25 a; Levy v. Mc Cartee, 6 Pet. (II. S.) 102, 8 L. Ed. 334 ; Taylor v. Carpenter, 11 Paige Ch. (N. Y.) 292, 42 Am. Dec. 114; Judd v. Lawrence, 1 Cush. (Mass.) 531. The disability is now removed, in a greater or less degree, by statutes in the various states, and alien friends stand on a very different footing from alien enemies ; Coats v. Holbrook, 2 Sandf. Ch. (N. Y.) 586; Re Barry, 2 How. (U. S.) 65, 11 L. Ed. 181. See ALIEN; WAR.
Bankrupts and insolvents are disabled to contract, by various statutes, in England, as well as by insolvent laws in the states.
Duress renders a contract voidable at the option of him on whom it was practised. See DURESS.
Infants are generally incapable of con tracting before the age of twenty-one years. This provision is intended for their benefit; and therefore most of their contracts are voidable, and not void. It is the infant's privilege at majority to elect whether to avoid or ratify the contract he has made during minority ; Phipps v. Phipps, 39 Kan. 495, 18 Pac. 707. Though the infant is not bound, the adult with whom he may con tract is. The infant may always sue, but cannot be sued ; Stra. 937. The infant can not avoid his contract for necessaries ; Phelps v. Worcester, 11 N. H. 51; 6 M. & W. 42; Shaw v. Bryant, 65 Hun 57, 19 N. Y. Supp. 618. See [1891] 1 Q. B. 413. If he
avoids an executed contract when he comes of age, on the ground of infancy, he must re store the consideration which he has receiv ed; the privilege of infancy is to be used as a shield, not as a sword ; Clark v. Tate, 7 Mont. 171, 14 Pac. 761; Utermehle v. Mc Greal, 1 App. D. C. 359. See INFANT ; NECES SARIES.
Married women, at common law, were al most entirely disabled to contract, their per sonal existence being almost entirely merged in that of their husbands ; Turtle v. Muncy, 2 J. J. Marsh. (Ky.) 82; Prescott v. Brown, 23 Me. 305, 39 Am. Dec. 623; 5 Exch. 388; so that contracts made by them before mar riage could be taken advantage of and en forced by their husbands, but not by them selves ; Howes v. Bigelow, 13 Mass. 384 ; Winslow v. Crocker, 17 Me. 29 ; Hyde v. Stone, 9 Cow. (N. Y.) 230, 18 Am. Dec. 501; Morgan v. Bank, 14 Conn. 99. The contract of a feme covert was, then, generally void, unless she was the agent of her husband, in which case it was the husband's contract, and not hers ; 6 Mod. 171; Pickering v. Pick ering, 6 N. H. 124; Green v. Sperry, 16 Vt. 390, 42 Am. Dec. 519; Stultz v. Dickey, 5 Binn. (Pa.) 285, 6 Am. Dec. 411; Benjamin v. Benjamin, 15 Conn. 347, 39 Am. Dec. 384. See MARRIED WOMAN.
Non compotes mentis. At common law, formerly, in this class were included luna tics, insane persons, and idiots. It is un derstood now to include drunkards; Grant v. Thompson, 4 Conn. 203, 10 Am. Dec. 119 ; Rice v. Peet, 15 Johns. (N. Y.) 503; Seaver v. Phelps, 11 Pick. (Mass.) 304, 22 Am. Dec. 372 ; 13 M. & W. 623; Youn v. Lamont, 56 Minn. 216, 57 N. W. 478. See Thomas' Adm'r v. Lewis, 89 Va. 56, 15 S. E. 389, 18 L. R. A. 170, 37 Am. St. Rep. 848. Spendthrifts un der guardianship are not competent to make a valid contract for the payment of money ; Manson v. Felton, 13 Pick. (Mass.) 206. Seamen "are the wards of the admiralty, and though not technically incapable of en tering into a valid contract, they are treated in the same manner as courts of equity are accustomed to treat young heirs dealing with their expectancies, wards with their guard ians, and cestuis que trust with their trus tees." Harden v. Gordon, 2 Mas. 541, Fed. Cas. No. 6,047. See 3 Kent 193 ; 2 Dods. 504.