PROBLEMS IN PROBATE AND ADMINISTRATION 343 logic, allow him to avoid the transfer at any time before the statute of limitations has run after he has attained full age/^^ unless there are circumstances showing estoppel, promissory estoppel, or change V. Gaslin, 20 Neb. 347, 30 N. W. 274 (1886); Englebert v. Troxell, 40 Neb. 195, 58 N. W. 852 (1894); Criswell v. Criswell, 163 N. W. 302 (Neb.) (1917); Weeks v. Wilkins, 134 N. C. 516, 47 S. E. 24 (1904); Gaskins v. Allen, 137 N. C. 426, 49 S. E. 919 (1905); Dolph V. Hand, 156 Pa. 91, 27 Atl. 114 (1893); Scott v. Buchanan, 11 Humph. (Tenn.) 468 (1850); Bingham v. Barley, 55 Tex. 281 (1881); Ferguson v. Houston Ry. Co., 73 Tex. 344, II S. W. 347 (1889); Bigelow v. Kinney, 3 Vt. 353 (1830); Richardson -u. Boright, 9 Vt. 368 (1837); Washington, Codes & Stats. (1915), § 5293; Featherston V. McDonell, 15 U. C. C. P. 162 (1865); Foley v. Canada Loan Co., 4 Ont. 38 (1883). The same rule was applied to a transfer of personalty by an infant. Hastings v. DoUarhide, 24 Cal. 195 (1864); Iowa, Code (1897), § 3189; Gannon v. Manning, 42 App. D. C. 206 (1914); Baker v. Kennett, 54 Mo. 82 (1873); Summers v. Wilson, 2 Cold. (Tenn.) 469 (1865); Washington, Code & Stats. (1915), § 5293. See Parsons V. Teller, 188 N. Y. 318, 326, 80 N. E. 930 (1907); Woolridge v. Lavoie, 104 Atl. 346 (N. H.) (1918). And to the executory contract of a minor. Johnson v. Storie, 32 Neb. 610, 49 N. W. 371 (1891) (surety on note); Chandler v. Jones, 173 N. C. 427, 92 S. E. 145 (1917). See DarHngton v. Hamilton Bank, 116 N. Y. Supp. 678 (1909) note; Hohnes v. Blogg, 8 Taimt. 35 (181 7); Edwards v. Carter, [1893] A. C. 360; Carnell v. Harrison, [1916] i Ch. 328. 166 Wells V. Seixas, 24 Fed. 82 (1885); Gilkinson ». Miller, 74 Fed. 131 (1896); Tucker V. Moreland, 10 Pet. (U. S.) 58, 75 (1836) (semble); Irvine v. Irvine, 9 Wall. (U. S.) 617 (1869); Sims V. Everhardt, 102 U. S. 300 (1880); McCarthy v. Nicrosi, 72 Ala. 332 (1882) (but see Schaffer v. Lauretta, 57 Ala. 14 (1876)); Putnal v. Walker, 61 Fla. 720, 55 So. 844 (191 1); Syck v. Hellier, 140 Ky. 388, 131 S. W. 30 (1910). Compare Hoflfert V. Miller, 86 Ky. 572, 6 S. W. 447 (1888). But see Justice v. Justice, 170 Ky. 423, 426, 186 S. W. 148 (1916); Boody V. McKenney, 23 Me. 517, 523, 524 (1844) (semble) -yDsLvis v. Dudley, 70 Me. 236 (1879); Prout v. Wiley, 28 Mich. 164 (1873); Donovan v. Ward, 100 Mich. 601, 59 N. W. 254 (1894); Wallace v. Latham, 52 Miss. 291 (1876); Allen V. Poole, 54 Miss. 323 (1877); Shipp v. McKee, 80 Miss. 741, 31 So. 197 (1902) (but see Thompson v. Strickland, 52 Miss. 574 (1876)); Brantley v. Wolf, 60 Miss. 420 (1882); Peterson v. Laik, 24 Mo. 541 (1857); Thomas v. PuUis, 56 Mo. 211 (1874); Lacy V. Pixler, 120 Mo. 383, 25 S. W. 206 (1894); Linville v. Greer, 165 Mo. 380, 65 S. W. 579 (1901); Parrish i>. Treadway, 267 Mo. 91, 183 S. W. 580 (1916); Jackson 5. Carpenter, 11 Johns. (N. Y.) 539, 542 (1814); Voorhiesf. Voorhies, 24 Barb. (N. Y.) 150 (1857); Eagan v. ScuUy, 51 N. Y. Supp. 680 (1898), aff'd 173 N. Y. 581, 65 N. E. 1116 (1902); Green v. Green, 69 N. Y. 553 (1877) (but see Jones v. Butler, 30 Barb. 641 (1859)); Drake v. Ramsay, 5 Ohio, 252 (1831). Cresinger v. Welch, 15 Ohio, 156 (1846); Lanning v. Brown, 84 Ohio St. 385 (191 1); Wilson v. Branch, 77 Va. 65 (1883); Birch V. Linton, 78 Va. 584 (1884); Gillespie v. Bailey, 12 W. Va. 70 (1877). The same rule was applied in the case of a transfer of personalty by a minor. Vaughan v. Parr, 20 Ark. 600 (1859); Hill v. Nelms, 86 Ala. 442, 5 So. 796 (1888). See Boody v. McKenney, 23 Me. 517, 525 (1884). And the same is true of an infant's executory contract. Buzzell v. Bennett, 2 Cal. loi (1852); Magee v. Welsh, 18 Cal. 155 (1861); Tyler v. Gallop, 68 Mich. 185, 35 N. W. 902 (1888); Nichols Co. v. Snyder, 78 Minn. 502, 81 N. W. 516 (1900); Tupp v. Pederson, 78 Minn. 524, 81 N. W. 1103 (1900); New Hampshire Ins. Co. v. Noyes, 32 N. H. 345 (1855); International Text Book Co. V. Connelly, 206 N. Y. 188, 99 N. E. 722 (1912).
