
    The Adm’r. of J. W. Haine v. John R. Tarrant.
    
      At Abbeville, Spring Term, 1834.
    An infant is Jariesiand where liis surety to tie'1 money,P he may recover it rom t e m ant.
    Before Mr. Justice Earle, who made the following report:
    “The defendant, when an infant, after the death of his father, obtained from the store of one Pooser, a merchant, clothing suitable to his station and degree, which were therefore considered necessaries, there being no proof that other provision ma(je for ¡j¡rao His mother spoke for (he articles, but they were charged to the defendant on the books. Afterwards, but before he came of age, the defendant gave his note for the amount of the account, the plaintiff’s intestate and another being his securities. The note was paid by the former, in his lifetime, and his administrator brought this sum. pro. to recover the amount from the defendant, as money paid. The fact that the defendant lived with his mother is not material, nor the fact that she spoke to the merchant to furnish the articles. The credit was given to the defendant, as the articles were charged to him. His father was dead, having made a will, and appointed executors, of whom the mother was not one. To discharge the defendant, he should have shewn that adequate provision had been made otherwise for his support.
    “ He was then liable, on the original contract, to the merchant. If the plaintiff’s intestate had paid the money for him, or to procure his liberation from arrest for the debt, it might have been recovered. 1 P. W. 558, note ; 5 Esp. Rep. 28. The claim of the plaintiff’s intestate is not weakened by the note being given, and his paying the money as security. It is settled by the case of Dubose v. Whedden, 4 M’Cord’s Rep. 221, that an infant may bind himself, by a note of hand, for nefiessaries. Judge Nott expresses the opinion that an infant woujgf be liable, even on a negotiable note, for necessaries, while it remains in the hands of the original payee. The note given by the defendant and his sureties was not negotiable ; he was therefore liable on it, and it was competent for hitn to request the plain, tiff’s intestate to pay the money, or to become his security. Having, at his request, joined him in the note, and paid the money as security, it is money paid to the defendant’s use, and the action will lie to recover it hack.
    From this decree the defendant appealed.
    
      D. L. Wardlaw, for the motion,
    Calhoun, contra.
    
      
       Otherwise in New York, 10 Johns. Rep. 33.
    
   Per Curiam.

We concur with Mr. Justice Earle in the view which he has taken of the law of the case, for the reasons contained in the report.

Motion dismissed.  