Interstate Commerce. Prostitution. White Slave Act

G. W. K.
1915 University of Pennsylvania Law Review and American Law Register  
Known as the Early Journal Content, this set of works include research articles, news, letters, and other writings published in more than 200 of the oldest leading academic journals. The works date from the mid--seventeenth to the early twentieth centuries. We encourage people to read and share the Early Journal Content openly and to tell others that this resource exists. People may post this content online or redistribute in any way for non--commercial purposes. Read more about Early Journal
more » ... ntent at JSTOR is a digital library of academic journals, books, and primary source objects. JSTOR helps people discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content through a powerful research and teaching platform, and preserves this content for future generations. JSTOR is part of ITHAKA, a not--for--profit organization that also includes Ithaka S+R and Portico. For more information about JSTOR, please contact 326 UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA LAW REVIEW 326 UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA LAW REVIEW erty, by misstating his age, he was required to give up the property, but not to pay for its use and occupation.2 The effect of the principal case in England is to allow the party defrauded by the infant to recover the property, surrendered in consequence of the contract, provided that it is still in the possession of the infant. The court specifically says26 that there is no liability to account, since there is no fiduciary relation, and refuses to give a judgment in personam to pay an equivalent sum out of his present or future resources. It is probable that the effect of the principal case will be the abolishment of the present rule 27 in England, that if upon the bankruptcy of an infant, there be a claim arising out of a transaction, identical with the principal case, a sum is recoverable out of his estate, even though it is impossible to trace the specific funds borrowed. It is submitted that the result of the decision under discussion is inequitable and an undue hardship upon the plaintiff, whose sole remedy is to bring criminal prosecution for obtaining money under false pretenses.28 Most courts in the United States have given similar immunity to infants, out of consideration for youthful improvidence in general. However, there is a noticeable tendency to deal with an infant's fraud, though connected with a contract, as with the fraudulent acts of adults.29 The following extracts from a decision 30 which has taken the broadest view of the situation, is an excellent statement of a principle which, it is submitted, might well be universally adopted: "When a minor whose appearance justifies belief in such a statement induces a contract, which is reasonable, by false assurances that he is of the age of majority, he should be, and is estopped to repudiate it, and should be compelled to carry it out or to fully restore status quo, by returning what he got and making compensation if he has wasted it." A. L. L.
doi:10.2307/3313769 fatcat:plsiulwfd5gofdtoy53uqdhvsq