
    GRAY v. HALL.
    Court of Common Pleas. Sussex.
    May, 1797.
    
      Bayard’s Notebook, 194.
      
    
    
      
       This case is also reported in Wilson’s Red Book, 161.
      
    
   Per Curiam.

The motion for nonsuit has been completely-answered upon two grounds: the first, that there is no proof of a bond having actually existed; and secondly, that the bond was to an infant designed purely for his benefit, and if he had given the bond he would not have been bound, a fortiori when it is given to -him. There can be no doubt that if one were indebted to an infant by simple contract and were to give his bond for the debt that the infant might waive the bond.

Nonsuit denied.  