Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
Judges

Wright et al. v. Stanley Motor Company.

OPINION OF THE COURT BY HOBSON, COMMISSIONER

Affirming.

The Stanley Motor Company brought this action in equity to recover of the defendants, Johnnie Wright and his son Harry Wright, $270, the balance alleged to be due on a car sold to them. The defendants filed answer; proof was heard, and on final hearing the circuit court entered judgment against the defendants for $270, less a credit of $25. The defendants have filed a motion for an appeal.

Harry Wright filed an answer alleging that at the time the contract sued on was made he was an infant under twenty-one years of age and pleaded infancy in bar of the action. By reply the plaintiff denied that he was an infant. But the uncontroverted proof on the trial shows that he was nineteen years of age. Being an infant he was not bound by the contract and no judgment should have been rendered against him thereon.

As to Harry Wright, the motion for an appeal is sustained, and the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded with directions to dismiss the petition as to him.

As to the father Johnnie Wright, the amount in controversy being less than $500, the motion for an appeal is denied and the judgment is affirmed without a written opinion.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

WRIGHT v. STANLEY MOTOR COMPANY
(May 5, 1933)