
    H. C. MINER LITHOGRAPHING CO. v. SANTLEY.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department.
    December 4, 1914.)
    Infants (§ 57)—Guaranty—Ratification.
    Where an infant executed a written contract of guaranty, and after he became of age wrote asking that an itemized bill be sent to him, there was no such “ratification” as to make him liable upon the guaranty.
    [Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Infants, Gent. Dig. §§ 136-148, 151; Dec. Dig. §' 57.*]
    Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, First District.
    Action by the H. C. Miner Lithographing Company against Joseph Santley. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, after trial before the court without a jury, defendant appeals. Reversed, and complaint dismissed.
    Argued October term, 1914, before SEABURY, BIJUR, and COHALAN, JJ.
    Max D. Josephson, of New York City, for appellant.
    Joseph A. O’Brien, of Brooklyn (James A. Sheehan, of Brooklyn, on the brief), for respondent.,
    
      
      For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes
    
   SEABURY, J.

The plaintiff sued the defendant upon a written contract of guaranty. The defendant pleaded infancy. It is conceded that the defendant was an infant at the time that the contract was made. The plaintiff seeks to overcome this defense by the claim that after the defendant became of age he wrote the plaintiff, asking that an itemized bill be sent to him. This act was not such a ratification of the contract of guaranty as to render the defendant liable upon it. 22 Cyc. 604, and cases cited; International Text-Book Co. v. Connelly, 206 N. Y. 188, 197, 99 N. E. 722, 42 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1115.

The defense of infancy having been established, the judgment is reversed, with costs, and the complaint dismissed, with costs. All concur.  