
    Polly Hunt against A. Peake.
    An infant under the age of 21 years, is not 1!able ,t0 an action for a breach of manage. °f
    
      Semble, that such a contract is not though he is void, but voidable at the election of the infant; who mar maintain the action "ot liable to it.
    Action for breach of marriage promise. Plea infancy. General demurrer and joinder.
    
      S. Starkweatherin support of the demurrer, , rxr 7
    
    said that infants may intermarry at the age of discretion, which is 14 in males ; and it would seem to follow that a promise to do SO is binding,
    
      
      L. Ford,
    contra, cited Holt v. Ward, (2 Str. 937:) and 15 Vin. Marriage, (C.) pl. 4, S. C. as in point against the action.
   Curia, per Savage, Ch, J.

The general principle is against the liability of the infant; and I do not find that this case is an exception. In Holt v. Ward, (2 Str. 937,) it was decided, after full argument and deliberation, that the contract to marry by an infant is not void; but voidable at the election of the infant; yet, as to the person of full age, contracting with the infant, it absolutely hinds. Hence, an infant may maintain this action against an adult; but an infant defendant is not liable. (Com. Dig. Enfant, B. 6.) The defendant is entitled to judgment,

Judgment for the defendant. .  