to be answerable for her own receipts,' Russel v. Paterson, 19th March 1629. In the other case, there being a decreet recovered at the in'stance of Euphan Hay, shopkeeper in St. Andrew's, against Eli'zabeth Corstorphin, for certain commodities furnished to the de'fender for her house, this decreet being recovered before the bailies of the regality, was brought in question before the Lords, upon this ground, that the defender, at the time of the furnishing, was clad with a husband, and so she could not be liable for any 'debt contracted by her stante matrimonio. To which it was an'swered, that, by the space of fifteen years, the defender was keeper ' of a house, and lodged boarders proprio nomine, there being diverse reports for the time, of her husband's death, in which time "the particulars libelled were furnished to her, for the use and necessity of her family and boarders. The Lords sustained the decreet,' Hay v. Corstorphin, 23d June, 1663. (Gilm.) 243. In these cases, the woman was merely found liable generally, upon contracts entered into by her in the course of her business or trade. In the following case, a married woman, stante matrimonio, was found liable even to personal diligence in similar cir cumstances. The husband of Janet Churnside having left. Scotland in bankrupt circumstances, she entered into trade, in order to maintain herself and her children. Being charged with horning for payment of a bill of exchange granted by her to James Currie, she presented a bill of suspension, upon the ground that a woman vestita viro could not by any contract subject herself to personal diligence. This plea, however, it is stated in the report, was entirely disregarded, as inapplicable to a case like the present, where the debt had been contracted by a wife in her own name, while her husband was out of the kingdom. To refuse the ordinary legal compulsatories in such circumstances, would, it was observed, in the end, prove hurtful to the women themselves, by preventing them from gaining a livelihood in trade, at a time when their husbands could not afford them any support. The bill of suspension was therefore refused by the Lord Ordinary, and afterwards by the Court, Churnside v. Currie, 11th July, 1789. 244. III. In considering the power of minors, past the age of puberty, to enter into contracts, a distinction must, in the first place, be made between those who have curators and those who have not. 245. (1.) With regard to minors who have no curators, the rule is, that their deeds are as effectual as if they had curators, and had acted with their consent, Ersk. 1. 7. 33. A minor in this situation, therefore, may sell his lands of his own accord; and although the sale may afterwards be reduced upon the head of minority and lesion, if he shall appear to have been prejudiced by the transaction, yet it will not be reducible on the head of minority alone, Thomson v. Stevenson, 13th December, 1666. 246. (2.) When, on the other hand, a minor has curators, the general rule, as stated by Erskine, is, that all deeds done, or con'tracts entered into, whether by a pupil or by a minor having < curators, without their consent, are null in this respect, that they have no effect against the minors, but they are obligatory on the ' other contractors, who may be compelled to perform their parts, if the contract be judged beneficial to the minor. This rule obtains, contrary to the nature of contracts, both from the favour of minors, to whom the law has not denied the power of making their condition better, although they cannot make it 'worse, and in pœnam of those who would impose upon their 'weakness *.' The general distinction then between a minor who has curators, and a minor without curators, is, that the deeds of the former, done without consent of his curators, are null and void, and the minor may plead his disability by way of exception; but the deeds of the latter are valid and effectual, although liable to reduction on the head of minority and lesion, Kincaid v. ——— , 20th May, 1561, Mor. 8979; Robertson v. Oswald, January, 1584, Mor. 8980; Thomson v. Pagan, 3d July, 1781. This remedy of reduction, on the head of minority and lesion, is not, however, confined to minors who have no curators. It is equally open to minors who have curators, and who have acted with their consent, when the deed is hurtful to the minor +. * Ersk. 1. 7. 33; Stair, 1. 6. 33. See a special case where this rule was departed from, Brown, 9th January, 1629. + Ersk. 1. 7. 54. It is said by Erskine (1. 7. 17.) that in sales by minors puberes with consent of their curators, The purchaser, to secure himself from the danger • of reduction, on the head of minority and lesion, sometimes insists to have the authority of the Court interposed to the sale;' and he mentions a case in which the Court did so interpose their authority, Campbell v. Campbell, 17th February, 1738, Mor. 8930. But, in a late case, where a process was brought for this purpose, by a These rules, touching the disabilities of minors, are subject to various exceptions. The following are applicable to the present subject. 247. (1.) A minor may make an effectual contract, without consent of his curators, for necessary furnishings of clothes or other articles. Ersk. 1. 7. 33; Stair, 54. So in a case where the executors of John Sharp were pursued for the price of certain clothes and wares furnished by the pur'suers to the said John, in the years 1627 and 1628, for the 'abuilziements of his body, and the said executors alleging that 'the said Sharp was minor the time of the said furnishing, and 'then had curators, without whose consent or direction the said 'furnishing being made, the pursuer could not have action therefore: The Lords repelled this alledgeance, in respect the minor, ' time of the furnishing, was 18 years of age, and that the same was made to him for his necessary abuilziements, and that he, being a young man of a good estate, the furnishing was not im'moderate, the defenders never alleging that the minor was other'ways furnished by his curators, and the pursuer, also offering to ' prove that he had made the like furnishing to the minor in other 'preceding years, for which he was satisfied, in respect whereof "the action was sustained,' Inglis v. Executors of Sharp, 5th February, 1631; same found Rynd v. Earl of Dunfermline, 22d March, 1634; Vid. Turnbull v. Richardson, 3d June, 1736, (Elch. voce Minor.) 248. In like manner, a minor who had no curators, was found liable for furnishings which he had ordered, not for himself, but for his brothers and sisters, reserving to him his action against them for repayment, McDougall v. Marshall, 14th July 1705. 249. The following case affords an illustration of the distinction which obtains in questions of this sort, between necessary furnishings, and such as are not necessary. • William Read, the son of a merchant in London, in the six<teenth year of his age, was bound apprentice to Mr. Hay, sur minor and his curators, the Court, although the above authorities were laid before them, on the ground that the minor and his curators could sell without judicial • authority, and that no decree of the Court could prevent a reduction by the minor, • refused to interpone their authority, as unnecessary,' Wallace and Curators v. Wallace, 8th March, 1817. geon in Edinburgh, who had directions to advance every thing 'necessary for his subsistence and education. Soon after his arrival in Scotland, Mr. Read became debtor < to Joseph Scoffier, haberdasher in Edinburgh, in the sum of L.50 Sterling, partly on account of money advanced by Mr. Scoffier, and partly for goods furnished by him. For this sum Mr. Read ⚫ drew bills on his father, which the latter refused to accept. In an action for recourse against the minor, in which compear•ance was made for Mr. Read the father, the Lord Ordinary pro⚫nounced the following judgment, which was adhered to by the Court upon advising a reclaiming petition for Mr. Scoffier. "In respect it is admitted by the pursuer, that the defender, "William Read, is a minor, and that he the pursuer, who is not "a banker or professed dealer in bills of exchange, had no mandate "from his the said William Read's father, the other defender, to "make advances to or for him; but that, on the contrary, such "commission had been given by his father to Mr. Thomas Hay, "in whose house the said William Read lodged, and to whom he ❝was then bound an apprentice, and who, it is not alleged, had "refused to supply the defender William Read with such fur nishings as were necessary and suitable; finds, That the pur"suer acted rashly and improperly in lending or advancing to the "said William Read, on the 23d of October, 1782, the sum of "L.16, 16s. 6d. Sterling, upon getting the said defender's bill or "draught on his father, then residing in London, for L.20 Ster❝ling, and so soon as the 4th of November following, advancing to "him another sum of L.16, 2s. 11 Sterling, upon getting a second "bill or draught from the defender on his said father for L.30 "Sterling; and both which bills were returned protested for not "acceptance: And in respect the pursuer does not offer to prove "that the said two sums of L.16, 16s. 6d. and L.16, 2s. 11d. "Sterling were afterwards usefully applied to the clothing, edu❝cation, or maintenance of the said defender; finds, That the said "two bills must be held as in so far granted by the defender, a "minor, without consent of his father as administrator-in-law, to "the lesion and prejudice of him the said defender; therefore as"soilzies as to the said two sums, part of the contents of the two "bills sued on; and also assoilzies as to the farther sum of L.6, "9s. 5d. Sterling, admitted to have been included in the contents ❝ of the L.30 bill, as the price or value of a woman's black silk "cloak, which the pursuer must have known to have been intend "ed for the use of a person of the female sex, and not to be used "or worn by the defender; but in regard it is admitted on the part of the defender, that the remaining sums contained in the "said two bills, viz. the sum of L.3, 3s. 6d. contained in the first "bill for L.20, and the sum of L.7, 7s. 8d., included in the second "bill of L.30, were sums due by the defender William Read to "the pursuer, on account of articles of wearing apparel furnished "by the pursuer to the defender, decerns against the said defender "William Read for the said two last mentioned sums, amounting together to the sum of L.10, 11s. 2d. Sterling," Scoffier v. Read, 26th July, 1783. 66 250. When a minor is forisfamiliated, and is engaged in a profession so as to be his own master, it would appear from the following case, that a greater latitude is allowed, and that he is personally liable for furnishings not strictly necessary, and which his father would not have been bound to provide him with, and for which, accordingly, his father cannot be sued. In this case it appeared that Mr. Maitland, son of the Earl of Lauderdale, received a commission in the army in the fifteenth year of his age; and having, in the course of a few months after, run in debt to Mr. Johnston, toyman in Edinburgh, he granted his acceptance for the amount, being L.17, 7s. A few days after, he incurred a further debt of L. 7, 18s. Of the furnishings composing this debt, some might have been deemed altogether useless and frivolous; but the greater part were articles which, although not absolutely necessary, are commonly possessed by young gentlemen of fashion and fortune. An action having been raised before the sheriff against Mr. Maitland, and his father as his administrator in law, the sheriff ordained the articles which were still in the 'defender's possession to be delivered up, and assoilzied quoad 'ultra.' Mr. Johnston having brought this judgment under review of the court of session by advocation, one of the judges, considering the practice of merchants taking bills from minors as highly improper and inexpedient, was for dismissing the action : another was for making a distinction between the furnishings 'which were altogether extravagant, and the rest; and all agreed, ⚫ that contractions of this sort were incapable of producing action ' against a father upon his natural obligation to afford an aliment to his children. The majority, however, were of opinion, that, ' in an action against the minor himself, and to the effect of at'taching his proper estate, the circumstance of his enjoying a com'mission in the army, was sufficient to justify advances such as |