JUDGMENT

1. In this case we have some to the conclusion that the Judge has gone too far. The suit is brought by a minor to declare a mortgage-deed void on the ground that he was a minor. The Court below, in a very sweeping and no doubt correct judgment, held upon the appeal of the money-lender that the minor bad been guilty of fraudulent representation with regard to his age, and that he had induced the mortgagee to part with his money by misrepresentation and that it was untrue to the knowledge of the minor, the truth not being known to the mortgagee. He has then gone on to use this curious and embarrassing language: "It is unnecessary to consider here whether the whole consideration was paid or not. This will be a matter for consideration if and when the present appellant files a suit on the basis of the mortgage." This undoubtedly goes much too far and is embarrassing to both parties. It may be used as a decision that the minor was liable if sued upon the bond and it, no doubt, is a direct encouragement to the mortgagee to bring a suit. But it makes all the difference where the minor, if be has made a fraudulent representation as regards his age, himself sues, because if the mort