He may reclaim his contribution before majority ; Sparman v. Keim, 83 N. Y. 245. Unless he gives notice of disaffirmance, or in some manner repudiates the contract with in a reasonable time after becoming of age, he will be presumed to have ratified it; Story, Fart. § 7 ; Richardson v. Boright, 9 Vt. 368 ; but it is held that there must be positive acts of ratification after majority; neglect to disaffirm is not ratification ; Dana v. Stearns, 3 Cush. (Mass.) 372; see 8 Exch. 181; Jones v. Bank, 8 N. Y. 228 ; and his lia bility then relates back to firm contracts made during his minority; Salinas v. Ben nett, 33 S. C. 285, 11 S. E. 968 ; Minock v. Shortridge, 21 Mich. 304. The person with the minor contracts will be bound; 2 & S. 205; Voorhees v. Wait, 15 N. J. L. 343. In England and in Maine ratification, after majority, must be in writing.
Lunatics. A lunatic is probably not abso lutely incapable of being a partner ; Lind. Part. *84; since the insanity of a partner does not per se dissolve the firm, but simply amounts to a sufficient cause for a court of equity to decree a dissolution; 1 Cox, Ch.
1071 2 Myl. & K. 125; Griswold v. Wadding ton, 15 Johns. (N. Y.) 57; contra, Isler v. Baker, 6 Humpbx. (Tenn.) 85. Subject to these qualifications a lunatic may enter into a partnership; Behrens v. McKenzie, 23 Ia. 333, 92 Am. Dec. 428; Fay v. Burditt, 81 Ind. 433, 42 Am. Rep. 142.
Whether a contract by a lunatic to be come a partner can in all cases be avoided by him, is, perhaps, unsettled; Story, Part. § 7, n. 1. But until such dissolution, the lunatic i,s entitled to a share of the profits made by the other partners, and is liable for their misconduct;. Raymond v. Vaughn, 128 Ill. 256, 21 N. E. 566, 4 L. R. A. 440, 15 Am. St. Rep. 112; Reynolds v. Austin, 4 Del. Ch. 24.
Married women, at common law, are in capable of becoming partners, since they are generally unable to contract or engage in trade; Mayer v. Soyster, 30 Md. 402 ; 3 De G., M. & G. 18; and cannot be made partners by contract ; Foxworth v. Magee, 44 Miss. 430; Ringold v. Suiter, 35 W. Va. 186, 13 S. E. 46; contra, Graff v. Kinney, 15 Abb.