§  61.  Inaol/oency^  when  important — As  we  have  already


*  It  was  held,  in  the  case  of  Fox  y.  Heath  (21  How.  Pr.  884),  that  an  assign-
ment executed  by  partners,  one  of  whom  was  an  infant,  was  void  for  the  reason
that  the  instrument  being  voidable  by  the  infant,  the  conveyance  was  not  abso-
lute and  irrevocable,  and  was  consequently  fraudulent  as  to  creditors.  In  the
late  case  of  Tates  v.  Lyon  (61  N.  T.  344),  this  doctrine  was  disapproved,  and  it
was  there  held  that  the  defense  of  infancy  must  be  made,  if  at  all,  by  the  infant
himself ;  and  it  seems  that  the  most  he  could  claim  would  be  that  he  should  not
be  held  personally  for  debts  beyond  what  the  assets  of  the  firm  are  able  to  pay.
In  Soper  v.  Fry  (87  Mich.  287),  it  is  held  that  an  infantas  assignment  is  not
void,  but  only  voidable,  and  that  only  by  the  infant,  or  some  one  in  his  right.
In  Maryland  a  married  woman  may  make  an  assignment  of  her  property,  the
same  as  any  other  person.    Schumann  v.  Peddicord,  50  Md.  560.
