FRAUDULENT CONTRACTS. 161 



If a buyer, under terms to pay for goods on delivery, Payment by a 

 obtains possession of them by giving a Cheque, which is Cheque which 

 afterwards dishonoured, he gains no property in the goods, ifonoured 

 if at the time of giving the Cheque, he had no reasonable 

 ground to expect that it would be paid {e). 



The contract of an infant, however fair and conducive Fraud of an 

 to his interests it may be, is not binding on him, unless it Iiif^nt. 

 be for necessaries. By the Common Law, however, the 

 contracts of an infant, other than for necessaries, were for 

 the most part only voidable. But now, by the 37 & 38 ^ 

 Yict. c. 62, s. 1, all contracts, whether by specialty or by 

 simple contract, entered into by infants for the repayment 

 of money lent or to be lent, or for goods supplied or to be 

 supplied (other than contracts for necessaries), and all ac- 

 counts stated wdth infants, are made absolutely void ; pro- 

 vided always, that the above enactment " shall not invalidate 

 any contract into which an infant may, by any existing or 

 future statute, or by the rules of Common Law or Equity, 

 enter, except such as are now by law voidable " (/) . And it 

 was no answer at law to a plea of infancy, that the defen- 

 dant, at the time of entering into the contract, fraudulently 

 represented himself to be of full age ; and that the other 

 party believing this representation, and on the faith thereof, 

 contracted with him {g). Nor did these facts form the sub- 

 ject of a good replication, on equitable grounds, to a plea of 

 infancy (li), although in such a case a Court of Equity 

 might grant relief against the infant on the ground of 

 fraud (/). 



A husband is not liable for any fraud of the wife. Of a mamed 

 which is directly connected with and dependent upon a Woman, 

 contract (/r). In a case in which an action had been 

 brought against a husband and wife for a false and frau- 

 dulent representation by the wife to the plaintiffs, that 

 she was sole and unmarried at the time of her signing 

 a promissory note as surety to them for a third person, 

 whereby they were induced to advance a sum of money 

 to that person, it was held that an action would not lie. 

 And Pollock, 0. B., said, " A. feme covert is imquestionably 



ie) Hawse V. Crou-e,'R.&M. Hi; {i) Nelsott v. StocJcer, 28 L. J., 



Earl of Bristol v. Wilsmore, 1 B. & C. 760. 

 C. 521. {k) Liverpool Adelphi Loan Asso- 



{/) Chit. Contr. 10th ed. 138. ciation v. Fairhurst, 9 Ex. 422 ; 



(V) Johnson v. Tije, 1 Sid. 258. Wrifjht v. Leonard, 30 L. J., C. P. 



{h) Bartlett v. Wills, 31 L. J., 3G5. 

 Q. B. 57. 



O. M 



