If a minor, by permission of his parent or guardian or by permission of law, practices any profession or trade or engages in any business as an adult, he shall be bound for all contracts connected with such profession, trade, or business.
(Orig. Code 1863, § 2695; Code 1868, § 2691; Code 1873, § 2733; Code 1882, § 2733; Civil Code 1895, § 3650; Civil Code 1910, § 4235; Code 1933, § 20-203.)
Law reviews.- For article discussing, "Voidability of Minors' Contracts: A Feudal Doctrine in a Modern Economy," see 1 Ga. L. Rev. 205 (1967). For comment on Ware v. Mobley, 190 Ga. 249, 9 S.E.2d 67 (1940), see 3 Ga. B.J. 65 (1940).
JUDICIAL DECISIONS
Prerequisites to recovery against infant to contract under O.C.G.A. § 13-3-21. - In order to hold an infant upon a contract, not made for necessaries, it must appear, (1) that the infant was practicing profession or trade, or was engaged in business; (2) that the infant had permission of the infant's parent, guardian, or law to pursue that occupation; and (3) that contract was connected with that profession, trade, or business. Burden of proving existence of this condition rests upon party asserting validity of contract. Medders v. Baxley Banking Co., 17 Ga. App. 730, 88 S.E. 407 (1916).
Emancipation from parental control does not remove disability to contract.
- Emancipation of minor from parental control only gives the minor a right to the minor's own earnings and releases the minor from the minor's parent's control from that time, but it does not remove the minor's disability and clothe the minor with power to contract. Wickham v. Torley, 136 Ga. 594, 71 S.E. 881, 36 L.R.A. (n.s.) 57 (1911).
Receipt of proceeds by infant for labor, insufficient to establish permission of parent.
- Fact that infant is receiving proceeds of infant's own labor is not alone sufficient to establish that permission on part of infant's parent has been given to engage in such business. Southern Cotton Oil Co. v. Dukes, 121 Ga. 787, 49 S.E. 788 (1905).
Section inapplicable to single transaction for sale of land.
- Rule which authorizes infant to make binding contract in connection with business in which the infant may be engaged, by permission of infant's parent or guardian, as an adult, is not applicable to single transaction for sale of land. White v. Sikes, 129 Ga. 508, 59 S.E. 228, 121 Am. St. R. 228 (1907).
Negotiable instrument given by infant for necessities or pursuant to trade or profession is not voidable.
- If a negotiable instrument is given for necessities or to secure funds to educate an infant, it will not be voidable; and if an instrument is given in performance of practice of a profession, vocation, or trade, it will not be voidable. James v. Sasser, 3 Ga. App. 568, 60 S.E. 329 (1908).
Contracts of guaranty or suretyship not within scope of any ordinary business.
- It would be contrary to spirit of the law that infant should be bound insofar as the infant is merely a surety or guarantor; a contract of guaranty or suretyship is not within scope of any ordinary business. James v. Sasser, 3 Ga. App. 568, 60 S.E. 329 (1908).
Occupation as laborer not profession, trade, or business.
- Fact that minor was working for wages with mining company showed that the minor was not engaged in practicing a profession or trade nor could the minor's occupation as a laborer be called a business. Pearsons v. White & Cochran, 13 Ga. App. 117, 78 S.E. 864 (1913).
Minor employed as clerk, not engaged in such business within meaning of law. Howard v. Simpkins, 70 Ga. 322 (1883).
Infant employed as linter in oil mill, not engaged in profession, trade, or business.
- Linter in oil mill, who is an infant, is not engaged in profession, trade, or business, within meaning of the law, so as to make the infant bound by contract made with the infant's employer in reference to claim for damages for personal injuries sustained in course of the infant's employment. Southern Cotton Oil Co. v. Dukes, 121 Ga. 787, 49 S.E. 788 (1905).
Infant engaged in business as adult, still entitled to service required in suits against minors.
- If infant by permission of parent or guardian engages in any business as an adult and becomes bound for all contracts connected with such business, this fact would not, while the infant was so engaged in business, dispense with necessity of making service on the infant in regular method provided for in suits against minors. Miller v. Luckey, 132 Ga. 581, 64 S.E. 658 (1909).
Instruction referring to business "of an adult" rather than "as an adult," not reversible error. Jennings v. Gibson, 77 Ga. App. 28, 47 S.E.2d 779 (1948).
Cited in McKamy v. Cooper, 81 Ga. 679, 8 S.E. 312 (1888); Ullmer v. Fitzgerald, 106 Ga. 815, 32 S.E. 869 (1899); Jimmerson v. Lawrence, 112 Ga. 340, 370 S.E. 371 (1900); McAllister v. Gatlin, 3 Ga. App. 731, 60 S.E. 355 (1908); Croom v. Jordan, 20 Ga. App. 802, 93 S.E. 538 (1917); Abraham v. Maloof & Co., 21 Ga. App. 522, 94 S.E. 826 (1917); Gibson v. Kyle, 46 Ga. App. 295, 167 S.E. 547 (1932); Tharpe v. Cudahy Packing Co., 60 Ga. App. 449, 4 S.E.2d 49 (1939); McCoy v. State, 74 Ga. App. 889, 41 S.E.2d 830 (1947); Weathers v. Owen, 78 Ga. App. 505, 51 S.E.2d 584 (1949).
RESEARCH REFERENCES
C.J.S.
- 17A C.J.S., Contracts, § 584.
ALR.
- Law of infant's contract as applied to contract of or by partnership, 58 A.L.R. 1366.
Liability of infant or his estate for rent, 68 A.L.R. 1185.
Validity, construction, and effect of court's approval of contract of minor's services, 3 A.L.R.2d 702.
Failure to disaffirm as ratification of infant's executory contract, 5 A.L.R.2d 7.
Right of infant who repudiates contract for services to recover thereon or in quantum meruit, 35 A.L.R.2d 1302.
Infant's liability for use or depreciation of subject matter, in action to recover purchase price upon his disaffirmance of contract to purchase goods, 12 A.L.R.3d 1174.
Enforceability of covenant not to compete in infant's employment contract, 17 A.L.R.3d 863.
Infant's misrepresentation as to his age as estopping him from disaffirming his voidable transaction, 29 A.L.R.3d 1270.