
    WILLIAM D. WAPLES vs. RICHARD F. HASTINGS.
    The bond and warrant of attorney of an infant are voidt,and cannot.be set up by subsequent ratification.
    Judgment on such warrant vacated'on'motion..
    Judgment confessed on bond and waiTa-nt of attorney, dated 18th of February, 1836. On the application of defendant, rule to show cause why the judgment should not be-vacated, on the ground that the defendant was an infant at the date of the- bond and warrant of attorney.
    At the hearing it appeared that the defendant was born on the 24th of April, 1816. He was acting as a man of full age in 1836, doing business as a partner with his father; generally- understood- to be of ge, and voted at the general'election in that year. In March, 1840, e executed a paper underhand and seal, expressly to recognize-and-onfirm this bond and warrant of attorney given to William D. Wales, in February,. 1836. The judgment was confessed on the 23d f February, 1836.
    
      Mr. Houston, in support of the rule
    argued: — That the- bond of' an nfant, even for necessaries was void; and the warrant of attorney oid. (Co. Litt. 172; Cro. Eliz. 920; 3 Com. Dig., lit. infant, C. 2; ull. JV. P. 182; 2 Wm. Blac. 1133; 2 Strange 1043.) That being void riginally, no subsequent ratification could make them valid. The oidable acts of an infant may be confirmed, but not his void contacts. The promise after full age may be a good ground of action, ut cannot establish the old contract, much less confirm- a void au1-jhority acted under before full age. (1 Leigh JV. P. 341; 2 Barn. & press. 842; 9 Eng. C. L. Rep. 256; 3 Bam. & Aid. 922; 1 Fien. Blac. 5; 18 Com. Lato Rep. 209.)
    
      Ridgely, contra.
    The application is on the equity side of the court r relief, and must be founded on equitable principles. A court of quity will decree a void contract to be good as against an infant ho practised a fraud in misrepresenting his age. If the infant be lid enough to carry On a .fraud, equity will not relieve him. (9 "in. 416; Fonb. 76; 2. Eq. Ca. Ab. 489; 1 Mad. Chan. 134; 1 Vern. ¡32; 3 Bac. Ab. 140, tit. infancy and age E; 3 Maul. & Sel. 477.) o if a feme covert give a bond representing herself as a feme sole, pe court will not set aside the judgment founded on such bond. (3 os. & Pul. 128; 2 Wm. Blac. 903; 5 Term. Rep. 194; 1 ib. 486; 6 ib. 51; I East 16; 9 Mod. 35; 7 ib. 10; 1 Bos. & Pull. 8; 3 ib. 220, re¿.views 1 H. Blac. 75, which went on the ground that plaintiff was apprised of defendant’s infancy.) Here the defendant held himself out to the world as of full age.
    
      Bayarcl replied.
    This is called a proceeding on the equity side of the court, merely because'it is in a summary form, and not a regular suit; but this conrt always judges on the same principles. The motion asks the decision of a mere legal principle that the bond of an infant is void. If this be so, the court must strike at their own irregular judgment founded on it, because that judgment is without authority. The application is not in behalf of the defendant alone, but of his other creditors, who seek to avoid this judgment. The principle contended for on the other side would not only establish al legally void instrument on equitahle principles against the infant himself, but against third persons. The cases cited are those of femes! covert, where summary relief is refused, because of fraud; but wher the defendant still had remedy by writ of error.
    
      Houston and J. A. Bayard, for the rule.
    
      Ridgely, contra.
   By the Court.

The bond and warrant of attorney of an infant an void. (3 Com. Dig., Enfant B.; Co. Litt. 172, a.)

The court, on motion, will set aside a judgment on a warrant o: attorney executed by an infant. (3 Com. Dig., Enfant B.; 2 Wm. Blac. 1133; 1 H. Blac. 75, Saunderson vs. Marr.)

Even if the contract could be confirmed after full age, it would not set up the warrant of attorney. (9 Eng. Com. Law Rep. 256 Thornton vs. Illingworth.)

The bond and warrant of attorney failing, the judgment is wit out authority and must be vacated.

The cases of suits against femes covert as femes sole, have onl; decided that the court will not permit the defendant to set up he coverture in a summary way, but put her to plead the coverture.

Rule absolute.  