
    Soper, Plaintiff in Error, versus The President and Fellows of Harvard College.
    The St. 1819, c. 37, imposing a penalty on any livery stable keeper who shall give credit to any undergraduate of either of the colleges, without the consent of such officer of the college as may be authorized by the college to act in such cases, or in violation of such rules as shall be established by the college, is not unconstitutional.
    En an action upon this statute, the declaration must allege, that rules have been established, &c. and an officer authorized, &c. pursuant to the statute.
    This was a writ of error brought to reverse the judgment of the Circuit Court of Common Pleas in an action carried there by appeal from a judgment rendered by David Townsend, a justice of the peace, in which the President, &c. were original plaintiffs, and Soper original defendant.
    The action was brought upon St. 1819, c. 37, the first sec tian of which provides, that no livery stable keeper “ shall give credit to any undergraduate of either of the colleges within this Commonwealth, without the consent of such officer or officers of the said colleges respectively as may be authorized to act in such cases, by the government of the same, or in violation of such rules and regulations as shall be, from time to time, established by the authority of said colleges respectively.” The third section gives an action on the case against the person giving credit, to recover a sum equal to the amount which shall be so unlawfully credited.
    The declaration contained two counts. The first, after reciting the statute in part, averred that Soper, being keeper of a livery stable, did, without the consent of any such officer or officers, at, &c. after the passing, &c. viz. on, &c. give credit to, and trust one Edward T. Tayloe, who during all said time was, and still is, a minor and undergraduate of said college, to the amount of fifteen dollars, for the use of said defendant’s horses and chaises, at the following rates and prices, &c. contrary to the form of the statute, &c. whereby, &c. In the second count, after an averment that Soper was a livery stable keeper, the allegation is, that said Soper, at, &c. since, &c. viz. on, &c. did, as such livery stable keeper, give credit to one Edward T. Tayloe, an undergraduate, &c. to the amount of fifteen dollars, for the hire of horses and carriages so let by said Soper to said Tayloe for hire upon credit, without the consent of the President of said college, or any other officer authorized by the government of the said college to act in relation to the premises, contrary, &c. whereby, &c.
    Judgment was rendered against the defendant by the justice of the peace, and by the Circuit Court of Common Pleas.
    Several errors were assigned, among which were :— I. That it did not appear that the government of the college had uithorized any officer thereof “ to act in such case,” for whose consent Soper might have applied : — 2. That it did not appear, that the college had established any rule which had been violated by Soper : — 3. That the act recited was unconstitutional and void.
    The defendants in error pleaded, in nullo est erratum.
    
    Webster, for the plaintiff in error.
    Stearns, for the defendants in error.
   Per Curiam.

The Court entertain no doubt of the constitutionality of the law on which this action is founded. The object of it is clearly within legislative sanction, being relative to the discipline of public seminaries of learning. The common law renders void any promise made by an infant, the consideration of which is not for necessaries ; but people will nevertheless give credit to them, and minister to their pleasures and dissipation, relying upon the honor of ingenuous young men to discharge debts so incurred. Thus the wholesome intention of the common law is evaded, and youth are exposed to temptations which it is difficult for them to resist, and thus parents are brought to expense, besides suffering the loss of their hopes in the education of their children. A general law, such as the one in question, is perhaps the only remedy for so great an evil ; and this statute may be considered as passed in aid of the common law, being founded in similar principles ; for youth assembled at a college for education are properly regarded as minors, whether of twenty-one years of age or under.

But, for errors manifest in this record, the judgment of the Circuit Court of Common Pleas must be reversed. It is not alleged in the declaration, that any rules have been established on the subject of the statute, nor that any officer has been authorized by the government of the college to give the consent which may be an excuse for the act of giving credit, though it is averred, that the credit was given without such consent. But we think the penalty is not incurred, unless some rules have been made on the subject of giving credit, nor unless some officer has been authorized to give or withhold consent, as the circumstances may require. The giving credit generally is not an offence, but only when it shall be done in violation of rules established by the government of the college. It is an essential fact, which ought to be averred, that such rules have been made.

Judgment reversed.  