FRAUDULENT CONTEACTS. 



155 



after tlie buyer has obtained possession of them, is evidence 

 that such prior transaction is fraudulent (c). 



A document which purports to be an agreement, and is 

 valid upon the face of it, but which is tendered in evidence 

 to show the transaction with which it is connected to be a 

 fraud, is admissible in evidence, although unstamped (d). 



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

 obtains possession of them by giving a cheque, which is 

 afterwards dishonoured, he gaias no property in the goods, 

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

 (/round to expect that it would be paid (e). 



The contract of an infant, however fair and conducive to 

 his interests it may be, is not binding on him, unless it be 

 for necessaries. By the common law, however, the con- 

 tracts 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 accounts 

 stated with infants, are made absolutely void ; provided 

 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 defendant, at 

 the time of entering into the contract, fraudulently repre- 

 sented himself to be of full age (/). 



A husband is not liable for any fraud of the wife, which 

 is directly connected with and dependent upon a contract (g) . 

 In a case in which an action had been brought against a 

 husband and wife for a false and fraudulent representation 

 by the wife to the plaintiffs, that she was sole and un- 

 married at the time of her signing a promissory note as 

 surety to them for a third person, whereby they were in- 

 duced to advance a sum of money to that person, it was 

 held that an action would not lie. And Pollock, O.B., 

 said, " A feme covert is unquestionably incapable of binding 

 herself by a contract ; it is altogether void, and no action 



agreement 

 admissible to 

 proTe fraud. 



Payment by a 

 cheque which 

 is dis- 

 honoured. 



Fraud of an 

 infant. 



Of a married 

 woman. 



(c) Ferguson T. Carrington, 9 B. & 

 C.59; 8. C. 3 0. & P. 457. 



[d) Holmes T. Sexsmith, 7 Ex. 

 802 ; Meff. v. Gompertz, 9 Q. B. 824. 



(«) Hawse v. Crowe, E. & M. 414 ; 

 Sari of Bristol T. Wilsmore, 1 B. & 



C. 521. 



(/) Johnson v. Fye, I Sid. 258. 



\g) Liverpool Adelphi Loan Asso- 

 ciation V. Fairhurst, 9 Ex. 422 ; 

 Wright V. Leonard, 30 L. J., C. P. 

 365. 



