Court case[1914] 3 KB 607

Sheill, a minor, obtained two loans of 200 pounds each from the plaintiff money-lenders by fraudulently representing that he was of full age. The money was spent. The lenders sued to recover 475 pounds (the loans with interest), framing the claim as damages for fraudulent misrepresentation, money had and received, and equitable restitution.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the claim. Lord Sumner held that the lenders could not sue in deceit, because that would be an indirect way of enforcing a contract the law had declared void against the infant. Nor could they recover as money had and received. Equity's doctrine of restitution against a fraudulent infant extends only to compelling him to restore property or money still identifiable in his hands; it does not permit a money judgment for a loan that has been spent, since that too would enforce the void loan.